18 laws, and the warrantees of due process of law. In this sense, the Court considers that the decisions and orders established in the second process do not allow to deem compliance with that established in the first Operative Paragraph of the Judgment and, in this manner; it will keep open the procedure of monitoring the compliance with judgment, until the State gives full compliance to the obligation concerned. Furthermore, the Tribunal considers that the State shall guarantee that all the legal consequences derived from such lack of compliance do not create a burden on the victim. 2. Duty to give an adequate medical and psychological attention (Operative Paragraph fifth of the Judgment) 52. Regarding the duty to give medical and psychological attention to Mrs. De La Cruz Flores through the State´s healthcare services, including the free provision of medicines, the State pointed out that it “assures and guarantees […] preventive, promotional, rehabilitation and recovery attention, including psychological medical services.” This way, she currently” is covered by the social security system.” Since her insurance type is “regular,” “her medical attention is 100% covered; therefore, there is no type of medical attention that cannot be covered […], which includes all type of treatments, including those that are ‘specialized’ or, in any event, ‘attention overseas.’” In this line, the State informed that Mrs. De La Cruz had been attended to on April 2 and 6, and December 9, 2009, in traumatology and psychiatry services. Likewise, the State stressed that “if […] there was a termination of the labor link of the person [derived from] a judicial judgment, […] the domestic law of health social security foresees a period of latency that covers 9 months of attentions posterior to the termination of the labor link, also [with a] 100% coverture.” 53. The State declared that “if Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was eventually placed into the penitentiary establishment, the Ministry of Health […] [would] automatically and freely affiliate her to the Integral Health Insurance, covering all the corresponding health care needs, that also include the mental conditions on schizophrenia, anxiety, depression or alcoholism, that are specialized treatments, and the respective medication.” In any event, “the National […] Penitentiary Institute has, within its facilities, a basic medical attention service in [which] regular and psychological medical services are included.” 54. The representative indicated that “[t]he victim has regained her right to receive [medical] services, not as a compliance of the State with the obligation established in [the] Court´s [J]udgment, but as a consequence of being working and contributing for such benefit.” For the representative, “the State did not adopt nor has adopted any measure to assure the medical and psychological attention that her health condition requires as a consequence of the human rights violations that she was a victim of on the part of the State.” The medical attention received by Mrs. De La Cruz “does not have origin in the physical and psychological suffering that she was subject of by the State when detaining, processing, and convicting her on violation of the legality principle and due process among others, but they originate in later illnesses of a different origin.” 55. In any case, the representative indicated that “the offerings of medical attention in case of contingency, such as her reclusion in a penitentiary center, and subject to previous diagnose, ratify the position […] of the inaction of the State in this aspect, given that it did not carry out any action or measure in order to diagnose the physical and mental health condition of the [victim].” Specifically, regarding psychological attention, the representative informed that “on April 6, 2009, [the victim] had to be attended in the specialty of Psychiatry of the ESSALUD II Suárez-Angamos Hospital, the same that diagn[o]s[ed her post-traumatic stress disorder], establishing as treatment […] medical [r]est from April 6 […] to April 20, 2009, issuing her [a] medical certificate of temporary incapacity for work.” Before such diagnose, Mrs. De La Cruz requested the Foundation of Social Aid of Christian Churches (FASIC), based on Santiago de Chile, “to give her specialized treatment, given the expertise of such institution in […] disorders [for] human rights violations.” Thus, Mrs. De La Cruz informed that “almost one year