84. On January 29, 2003, the Constitutional Court issued a judgment dismissing the amparo suit.50 The Court found that “the offense that is claimed–negative and omissive conduct of the President of the Republic to heed the request of the claimants– ceased [due to the agreements reached at the meeting of October 30, 2002].”51 Consequently, it held that the appeal is without merit though it did not order the claimants to pay costs.52 The Commission posits that in its judgment, the Constitutional Court did not consider at all how the funds that were ordered in the special outlay were used. Nor did it rule on the prospects of permanent budget outlays in order to comply in the medium and long term with the law and the regulation on the subject matter. 85. The petitioners argued that none of the alleged victims was benefited by the antiretroviral medicine granted through the transfer of funds in May 2003.53 They claimed that it was only enough to cover the antiretroviral medication of approximately eighty persons living with HIV/AIDS.54 Said information was not refuted by the State. 3.3 Actions subsequent to the decision of the Constitutional Court from 2003 to 2005 86. Both parties reported that after the decision of the Constitutional Court, a meeting was held between the President, the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, as well as the petitioners.55 At said meeting, the Executive Director of the Foundation for the Prevention of AIDS and the Director of the Association for Integrated Health (ASI for its Spanish initials) sent a communication to then President Oscar Berger on behalf of the alleged victims.56 87. In said communication, they requested for him, among other things, i) to introduce and promote before the Congress of the Republic the legislative bill “The State Policy to universally ensure integrated HIV/AIDS treatment;” and ii) to ensure an annual budget outlay for the strengthening and functioning of the National AIDS Program in keeping with actual needs in the country.57 They claimed that at said meeting the government pledged to develop a program to make it possible to ensure antiretroviral treatment universally.58 88. The petitioners reported that at said meeting the President at the time made a commitment to take different measures, including repeal of Decree 9-2003, which prohibited that sale of generic medicines.59 They contended that despite having done so, the President withdrew the legislative bill that 49 Annex 10. Written submission of the Ministry of Public Health dated October 30, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 50 Annex 11. Judgment of the Constitutional Court dated January 29, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 51 Annex 11. Judgment of the Constitutional Court dated January 29, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 52 Annex 11. Judgment of the Constitutional Court dated January 29, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 53 Annex 12. Petitioners’ communication of April 2, 2004. 54 Annex 12. Petitioners’ communication of April 2, 2004. 55 Annex 13. Petitioners’ communication of August 16, 2004. Annex 14. State’s written submission of June 18, 2004. 56 Annex 14. State’s written submission of June 18, 2004. 57 Annex 14. State’s written submission of June 18, 2004. 58 Annex 15. Petitioners’ communication of May 13, 2005. 59 Annex 13. Petitioners’ communication of August 16, 2004. 2003. 2003. 2003. 22