62 140. Finally, the care every person who is under health treatment is entitled to is particularly required in the case of patients with mental illness, given their vulnerability when they are admitted to psychiatric institutions. 2. The duty to regulate and supervise 141. The Court has established that the duty of the States to regulate and supervise the institutions which provide health care services, as a necessary measure aimed at the due protection of the life and integrity of the individuals under their jurisdiction, includes both public and private institutions which provide public health care services, as well as those institutions which provide only private health care (supra paras. 89 and 90). Particularly, regarding the institutions which provide public health care services, such as the Casa de Reposo Guararapes, the State should not only regulate and supervise them, but also take care of the persons admitted to such institutions. 142. In the instant case, the Casa de Reposo Guararapes operated within the framework of the public health care system, and the State had the duty to regulate and supervise it, not only by virtue of the duties thereof derived from the American Convention, but also by reason of its domestic legislation. Pursuant to Article 197 of the Constitution, “health care services are of public relevance, and it is incumbent upon the power of the State to provide for their regulation, supervision, and control, pursuant to the legislation in force [...].” Furthermore, Article 200 of the Constitution sets forth that “the [S]ingle [H]ealth [S]ystem […] has the duty to control and supervise procedures [... and] implement health surveillance policies [...].” In turn, Article 6 of Law No. 8,080 of 1990 provides that “the scope of action of the Single Health System (SUS), includes [inter alia,] the adoption of measures to implement health surveillance, [which] is understood as a set of policies aimed at preventing health risks and taking action regarding health problems […] related to the performance of health care services [and] the control and monitoring of relevant health services, products, and substances [...].” 143. The Court notes that the State was cognizant of the hospitalization conditions of the Casa de Reposo Guararapes at the time of the facts. The violence inflicted on patients had already been the context of the death of two persons admitted to such institution (supra para. 112(58)). Furthermore, on May 15, 1996 the Psychiatric Care Support Group of the Ministry of Health had drawn a report on the results of the inspection carried out at the Casa de Reposo Guararapes, wherein it was recommended that two infirmaries of said institution be closed due to their poor operating conditions, leaks, and other irregularities (supra para. 112(62)). 144. The Court points out that this situation continued until October 21, 1999, when officials from the Department of Health Surveillance of the Secretariat of Health and Social Development carried out an inspection at the Casa de Reposo Guararapes in order to find out if such institution complied with the provisions of the pertinent regulations. Furthermore, on November 4, 1999 the Coordinator of Control, Evaluation, and Audit and the Medical Auditor of the Municipal Audit System, visited the Casa de Reposo Guararapes. In full agreement, the three bodies concluded that the institution did not meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent regulations and recommended that the irregularities be immediately sorted out (s upra paras. 112(63) and 112(64)).