91 “project involving the installation of livestock modules in response to the political violence in the community of Santa Bárbara.” 353 303. However, the Court does not have information as to which individuals or families constitute the collectivity of “the population of Santa Bárbara” who were the recipients of this reparation, and specifically, whether the next of kin of the victims of forced disappearance in the instant case are part of said collective. Nor does it have information on the effective implementation of said reparation. Furthermore, the State did not explain how the collective reparation took into account, in specific terms, the property losses suffered by the two aforementioned victims in this case as a result of the facts, in order to provide them with specific compensation for the differentiated harm they suffered. On this point, the expert witness Miryam Rebeca Rivera Holguín explained to the Court that, “by losing their herds and their domestic animals [, these persons] lost their means of subsistence. Returning to the community and having a house without their animals being replaced would not make sense from the point of view of Andean life, so it is essential to ensure that the reparation includes animals that allow for a decent livelihood and covers the needs of the families.” 354 304. In view of the foregoing, the Court orders the State to deliver to Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque and Marcelo Hilario Quispe, within one year of notification of this judgment, ten alpacas each or their equivalent market value. In relation to the houses that were burned down as a result of the facts of this case, the Court considers that the State must, through its existing housing programs, provide adequate housing to Zenón Cirilo Osnayo Tunque and Marcelo Hilario Quispe, respectively, within one year. If at the end of this period the State has not delivered the aforementioned housing, Peru shall provide, in equity, the amount of USD $25,000.00 (twentyfive thousand United States dollars) to each of them. Said measure of reparation must be implemented with the participation of the victims and in agreement with them. C.2. Rehabilitation C.2.1. Medical and psychological or psychiatric treatment Arguments of the Commission and the parties 305. The Commission requested the implementation of an adequate psychosocial care program for the next of kin of the disappeared victims. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to provide free medical and psychological assistance to the victims’ next of kin, and to allow them access to a State medical center where they can receive adequate and personalized attention to help them heal their physical and psychological wounds, including the cost of any medication prescribed. The medical center in which physical and psychological care is provided to the victims' next of kin shall be chosen by mutual agreement with them and efforts shall be made to ensure that it is in the vicinity of their residence. Such treatment should consider the particular circumstances and needs of each of the victims, so that collective, family, and individual treatment is provided. In addition, a treatment plan should be developed after a comprehensive assessment that reflects the agreement with each of the victims. 306. The State explained that the Comprehensive Reparations Plan includes health care reparations, and that several of the alleged victims ‘next of kin are currently covered by the Comprehensive Health Insurance (Seguro Integral de Salud - SIS), which seeks to protect the health of Peruvians who do not have health insurance, prioritizing vulnerable populations living in 353 Cf. Brief of the Executive Secretary of the High Level Multisectoral Commission in charge of the actions and State policies regarding peace, collective reparations and national reconciliation (evidence file, folios 4714 and 4715). 354 Cf. Psychological assessment rendered by affidavit on January 12, 2015 by Miryam Rivera Holguín (evidence file, folio 5304).