this judgment, shall be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of rehabilitation 135. In its final written observations, the Commission argued that the State should provide the victim with “adequate treatment according to his needs, […] by a person or institution with the expertise required to specifically treat persons who have suffered acts of discrimination.” 136. The representatives requested that the State provide Mr. Olivera with “adequate psychological or psychiatric treatment, as appropriate” free of charge, immediately and for the time necessary. They indicated that the State should also cover the cost of transportation and medications, as well as any other expenses arising from the treatment. They also requested that this treatment be provided by psychologists or psychiatrists with expertise in treating LGBTI Q+ people, by mutual agreement with Mr. Olivera. In the absence of such experts in the general psychological and psychiatric care service of the Integral Health System (hereinafter “SIS”) or the Social Health Service (hereinafter “EsSalud”), they requested that the State provide specialized treatment at a private health center. 137. The State argued that the body of evidence does not show a causal link between the alleged events of August 11, 2004 and the impairment of Mr. Olivera’s mental health. It pointed out that the expert opinion of Mr. Gonzalo Meneses would be time-barred, since the events occurred in 2004 and the psychological evaluation was conducted 17 years later. It also indicated that, despite the fact that the effects on Mr. Olivera Fuentes’ mental health have not been proven, he could still request psychological or psychiatric care through the free health care coverage provided by the State. On this point, it added that the Comprehensive Health Insurance to which Mr. Olivera is affiliated offers free coverage for patients with mental health disorders, such as anxiety and depression, which may be accessed by any citizen who presents his national identity document. 138. With regard to the expenses for the psychological support provided to Mr. Olivera Fuentes after the public hearing, the State indicated that the receipts should not be considered by the Court because: (i) they are not related to the facts in dispute, since Mr. Olivera’s mental health has not been the subject of discussion, and (ii) Mr. Olivera Fuentes has had access to SIS, through which he could have requested psychological treatment sessions and therapy if he had required it. 139. The Court notes that the expert opinion prepared by Mr. Meneses addressed, in general terms (i) the damage to mental health caused by structural and daily discrimination against LGBTI+ people, particularly gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and (ii) actions to eradicate, prevent and adequately repair this type of harm by the State. The Court also notes that Mr. Olivera stated that the entire proceeding before the domestic authorities was “very frustrating” for him, and that “no one knows how many tears and how much anger I had to go through, when I had to read all these things, all the allegations in the case,” because they constructed a story that “invalidat[ed]” him and discredited his word for being a homosexual. He added that his words had been “ignored” and “stripped of value” and “credibility,” which caused him “a lot of pain” and “emotional 49