benefits determined in the Universal Health Insurance (AUS) and PEAS (Strategic Plan for Universal Insurance)” since “those people in SIS can access physical and mental health services.” 48 It also assured that “through Supreme Decree No. 006-2006-S.A. SIS health services have expanded [...] for victims of human rights violations declared as such in the rulings of the Inter-American Court.” In addition, in its report of September 24, 2013, it held that "the Court should be aware that access to [SIS] requires voluntary and personal action” which “requires that beneficiaries of this [J]udgment participate by showing their national identity [...] at the location nearest to their home to register in the SIS and thereby have access to an evaluation and then be referred to the appropriate center if complex care is required.” Finally, in terms of the obligation to pay the amount stated in the Judgment to victims living abroad who establish a need for medical and psychological treatment, it noted that "[t]his has not been implemented” and that “[i]f a case is filed, the judicial authority will order how to execute the mandate.” 42. The common intervener Feria Tinta noted in a brief of March 12, 2013, that the State had not sent a copy of "Supreme Decree No. 006-2006” wherein it “had extended health services to 'victims of political violence' [and to] victims of human rights violations declared as such in the Judgments of the Inter-American Court”; whereby “its text is unknown to both the Court and to the victims.” Moreover, the common intervener also referred to the delicate state of health of some of the next of kin of the victims she represents, and emphasized that Peru “has not provided any documentation [...] proving that the list of victims [it] represents are insured, and may therefore enjoy [the] benefits of the [SIS’s general health care plan].” Additionally, in regard to the measure concerning the payment of US$5,000.00 for her medical and psychological treatment, the common intervener stated, in her role as victim, that despite having established “residence abroad” and that the Judgment established “the need for support to ease the psychological damage that was suffered” to date, “no such payment has been received.” She added that “it is clear from the evidence established during the proceeding which was not contested by the State, that there is psychological expertise that establishes that the undersigned suffered from PTSD (PostTraumatic-Stress-Disorder) and is in need of psychological treatment).” 43. The common intervener Cassel has repeatedly referred to “emergency health care for victims,” providing detailed information about “the grave health situation" of some of the represented individuals who “continue to suffer medical and psychological consequences due to the events that took place in the prison, and to date have not been granted a measure of reparation for their health needs.” In that regard, the common intervener considered that the State has not met the requirements established by the Court for this measure of reparation, in particular, concerning the "preference" when referring victims to the national health system, because "[t]he victims of State violence are not ordinary citizens, entitled to regular public services [but r]ather must benefit from a particular positive treatment, as a response to the specific negative treatment to which they were subjected when their human rights were seriously violated.” Additionally, the common intervener considered that the State intends to “place the responsibility of taking initiative for this measure on the victims,” proposing, among other things, "to have the individuals go to the same public health centers that they had been rejected from [... ] and even harassed in the past.” Based on the abovementioned, the common intervener concluded that “what is required from the State is a serious plan, dialogued with victims and with independent experts in the field [...] to diagnose and provide adequate medical services for the victims” and “that imposes responsibility upon the State, and not on the victims.” Finally, the common intervener added 48 The State indicated that "the members of the SIS are insured under Law No. 29344 (Law under Framework of Universal Health Insurance) and they have coverage of the Essential Plan of Health Insurance, including diagnostic procedures, drug treatment and monitoring of [disease or] mental problems” (State Report of January 23, 2013, case file on monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, take IV, folio 1900). 19