99 orders. B. Rehabilitation 329. The Commission asked that the Court order the State to provide I.V. with high-quality medical care, tailored to her individual needs and appropriate to treat her medical conditions. 330. The representative asked the Court to order the State, following a medical, psychological and psychiatric appraisal, to provide, free of charge, through its specialized health care institutions, and immediately, adequately and effectively, medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment, if I.V., N.V. and L.A. requested this, following their prior informed consent. The representative also asked that this assistance should include the supply, free of charge, of any medicines that they might require, taking into consideration medical conditions related to the facts of this case. In addition, she asked that the respective treatment be provided, insofar as possible, in the center nearest to their place of residence, for as long as necessary. Lastly, the representative asked that the treatment or therapy provided should be paid for by the State, respond to the needs of the victims, and result from mutual agreement between the State and the beneficiaries. 331. The State noted with concern that the representative had requested comprehensive measures of reparation in favor of I.V., N.V. and L.A., without considering that “[t]he aftereffects that I.V. is alleging today, are the result, as she herself has acknowledged, of the acts of torture to which she was subjected in Peru and, therefore, do not correspond to the surgical procedure that is the subject of these proceedings” and that “[a]ny problems that N.V. and L.A. may display cannot be considered a result of a State intervention; [but rather] a consequence of their way of life owing to I.V.’s psychological traumas, resulting from the alleged torture suffered in Peru.” In this regard, the State argued that “since consent is a categorical requirement for the absence of international responsibility, [it] considers the request for comprehensive reparation for I.V., N.V. and L.A. to be totally inadmissible.” The State asked the Court to “take into account that I.V. never requested a reversal of the tubal ligation and this, at the very least, calls into question the presumed victim’s statements on the serious harm done to her life project.” 332. Having verified the serious harm to her personal integrity suffered by I.V. as a result of the facts of this case (supra Chapter VIII-2), the Court finds, as it has in other cases,402 that it is necessary to establish a measure of reparation that provide adequate care for the victim’s physical and psychological ailments, according to her gender specificity 403 and history. To contribute to redressing this harm, the Court establishes the obligation of the State to provide medical care to I.V., free of charge, through its specialized health institutions and immediately, adequately and effectively, specifically in the area of sexual and reproductive health, as well as psychological and/or psychiatric treatment, including the free supply of any medicines she might eventually require, taking into account her conditions. This signifies that I.V. must receive differentiated treatment in relation to the process and procedure required to be attended in public hospitals. Also, the respective treatments must be provided, insofar as possible, in the centers nearest to her place of residence in Bolivia, for as long as necessary. In particular, the psychological treatment should be provided by State personnel and institutions specialized in attending to victims of facts such as those that occurred in this case related to the victim’s sexual and reproductive health.404 When providing the Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 42 and 45, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 284. 402 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 251, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 252. 403 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 252, and Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 326. 404