8 has “universal insurance and a healthcare system that is beginning to be used by extremely poor sectors of society.” Finally, the State noted that the beneficiaries “have their healthcare guaranteed in accordance with applicable laws and they may receive whatever medical care they require in their local facility, and in the event they require specialized care, they may be referred to another, more sophisticated establishment.” 22. The representatives stated that Victoria Margarita Palomino, Margarita Palomino Buitrón, Mónica Palomino Buitrón, Emiliano Daniel Palomino Buitrón, Ana María Gómez Guevara, and Rodrigo Esteban Palomino Buitrón are members of the SIS at the heath clinic San Genaro de Villa; María Dolores Gómez Palomino is affiliated with ESSALUD (Social Security Health Insurance); Luzmila Sotelo Palomino receives health benefits from the Peruvian National Police, and, Rosa Palomino Buitrón is not presently a member of the SIS. Regarding the latter beneficiary, the representatives provided the name of the health clinic nearest her home. They also expressed their concern over the treatment received by Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, who while “conversing with social welfare [was asked] questions as to whether [her] son was a terrorist.” Accordingly, the representatives deemed it important that “the State officials responsible for health benefits take responsibility for their work, bearing in mind that often the stigma that weighs on the victims creates new violations of their rights.” On the other hand, the representatives maintained that mere membership with the SIS does not guarantee the provision of comprehensive health benefits that cover all the care or medicines required. The representatives stated that “the difficulties with the care distort the aims of the reparation measure.” Similarly, they mentioned the Office of the Ombudsman’s ongoing oversight of health-related reparation measures within the framework of the State’s policy on the matter.10 In this respect, the representatives requested that “benefits be provided via an insurance system other than the SIS in order to fully comply with the goals of this obligation.” 23. The Commission expressed its concern that the SIS insurance “does not cover or comply with the minimum standards necessary to treat the physical and mental health of the victims, [or] the family members of victims, of human rights violations.” Thus, the Commission supports the exploration of other alternatives to overcome these shortcomings. It also noted that Ms. Rosa Palomino Buitrón “still continues without health insurance.” Furthermore, it indicated that “no information has been presented regarding the delivery and quality of medical treatment that the beneficiaries are receiving.” In this regard, the Commission continues to await detailed and updated information from the State to determine whether the medical treatment the victims receive is appropriate for their needs. 24. The Court takes note of the information provided by the parties regarding the fact that the beneficiaries of this reparation measure are already members of a health care plan,11 except Ms. Rosa Palomino Buitrón. In this regard, the Court stresses that compliance with this reparation is not achieved merely by registering all family members of the victim 10 According to the representatives, the Office of the Ombudsman “[has] confirmed the difficulties and limitation sconcerning the benefits that this insurance provides,” with regard to the “processing of beneficiaries’ enrollment, the minimum coverage that this insurance offers, and the unfamiliarity of the medical and technical staff with the SIS’s restorative nature.” The representatives also stated the Ombudsman’s contention that “these limitations are because the insurance policy was originally conceived to give priority to poor populations, and it was not designed according to the particular demands and requirements of the persons that have suffered serious human rights violations.” Therefore, “it cannot be said that mere membership satisfies the aims of the reparation measure with regard to health.” 11 As well the persons refered to by the representative, the Court notes that regarding Ms. Esmila Liliana Conislla Cárdenas, the State presented a “membership card” on September 28, 2009 in which it states that this beneficiary is a member of the SIS and that the “health facility in which [...] she [will] receive regular care [is] Santa Teresa de Chorrillo.”