to those established in the Essential Plan, additional financing to that established, or care for problems not included in this Plan, the health care establishment that attends the patient can request authorization for special coverage. Thus, the beneficiaries in the Huilca Tecse case are able to access psychological and psychiatric treatment financed by the Comprehensive Health Insurance Program. The State clarified that, initially, it sought to treat each beneficiary in the health care center closest to their domicile and, subsequently, based on the possibilities and shortages of the primary health care center, they could be referred to establishments with a greater capacity to treat them. The State reiterated that this procedure “functions for centers specialized in mental health care, where it is possible to take advantage of the appropriate interventions and services for each specific case.” The State also indicated that it “offers a program of specialized psychological treatment for the next of kin of Mr. Huilca Tecse.” Subsequently, it advised that the Supranational Special Public Attorney of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had held coordination meetings with Martha Flores and the lawyer who represents her in the domestic sphere, in order to explain to her the scope of the Comprehensive Health Insurance Program (SIS). By telephone, Ms. Flores had indicated that she had made an appointment with the health care center nearest to her home and had no difficulty in receiving treatment, so that she would use this service. Lastly, the State indicated that it had reiterated to the beneficiaries in this case that, if they encountered any bureaucratic and/or administrative difficulties, they should contact the Supranational Special Public Attorney of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in order to overcome any problems that might arise in each case. Therefore, it asked the Court to consider that this measure had been complied with partially. 24. The representatives indicated that they had not been informed of the meetings held to re-evaluate the medical situation of some of the victim’s next of kin, which had “never taken place.” Subsequently, they acknowledged “the efforts made by the Peruvian State to improve the services of the health care program.” They indicated that, as the State had indicated in its report, “Martha Flores had no difficulty in receiving attention when she approached a health center.” However, they asked the Court to continue monitoring this measure in order “to avoid bureaucratic and/or administrative difficulties interfering with the medical care, which would prevent continuing compliance with this measures.” 25. First, the Commission indicated that the information provided by the State “continue[d] to be limited, by merely referring to the different types of health insurance to which the next of in would have access.” Then, the Commission observed that, in different cases against Peru, it had reiterated that it was not possible to consider that the State had complied with the obligation to provide medical and psychological treatment to all the victims merely be enrolling them in the Comprehensive Health Insurance Program (SIS). However, it took note of what the representatives had indicated as regards the improvements in the health care program. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considered that, before finding that this element of the Judgment had been fulfilled, the State should forward sufficient information on the services provided in order to verify that the health care measures that it has implemented are differentiated, individualized, preferential, comprehensive, and provided by specialized institutions and personnel. 26. The Court takes note of the information provided by the parties that the victims, beneficiaries of this measure of reparation, are affiliated to the Comprehensive Health Care System (SIS), with the exception of Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez who is affiliated to ESSALUD. In addition, the Court notes that Martha Flores 9