Court reiterates that, in addition to the measures adopted under the general health care system, the State must grant preferential care to the victim, 4 and a differentiated treatment as regards the process and procedures to treat his health problems related to the harm declared in the judgment. Regarding the provision of medicines free of charge, the information provided by the State does not refer to specific compliance with this aspect. Consequently, and in order to assess the relevance of these steps in relation to the measure of reparation ordered by the Court, the State must refer specifically to the possibility of Mr. García Asto having effective access to free medical and psychological care, as well as the provision of medicines, free of charge. B) Regarding the obligation to provide Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas with the opportunity for training and professional development, through study grants (twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment) 10. The State advised that, on February 4, 2009, “the Supranational Special Public Attorney’s Office asked the representative of the Ministry of Education to the National Human Rights Council for his collaboration in order to comply with the aspects of the judgment corresponding to his sector, and also the report on compliance with this obligation.” 11. Regarding Mr. García Asto, the representatives indicated that “he had completed his professional studies [in the Universidad Nacional del Callao] through his own efforts and with financial support from his family, […] obtaining his first level degree in Systems Engineering.” They indicated that “[f]aced with the impossibility of continuing to assume the expenses of [his] studies, on June 23, 2008, [Mr. García Asto] approached the Rector of the Universidad Nacional del Callao and asked him […] to arrange for compliance with the twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment”; in this way, he was awarded a grant that allowed him to complete his professional studies and that exempted him from “any payment that, as a student, he had to make to complete his studies.” By Decision of the Rector of October 10, 2008, “the exoneration of payments in order to obtain a professional degree was approved.” In addition, in December 2008, “the payment of the fees to obtain the first level degree and other charges were reimbursed.” Furthermore, Mr. García Asto asked the Dean of his faculty to facilitate his enrolment in the course on Propaedeutics in order to obtain the title of Systems Engineer without being required “to pay fees for the degree, the examination, the certified copy of first level degree, certification of being free of debt, and any other aspect for that purpose that involves the payment of fees.” The representatives also “placed on record that the elements that are being complied with have responded to initiatives of […] the interested party, and not of the [State] organs.” 12. In the case of Mr. Ramírez Rojas, the representatives indicated that, on October 25, 2006, they informed the National Human Rights Council “of the interest of Mr. Ramírez Rojas to obtain a master’s degree in Economics, with a major in Economic Science and Economic Policy, offered by the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, in 2007.” They indicated that “since no response was received from the State, the intervention of the Ombudsman was requested,” without “any response from the Ministry of Education.” In addition, “[o]n April 17, 2007, in a letter to the National Human Rights Council, Mr. Ramírez Rojas confirmed his interest in obtaining a Master’s degree in Economics.” Subsequently, 4 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment and provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, thirtieth considering paragraph; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, fifty-seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, twentyfifth considering paragraph. 4