that “victims residing abroad have also not received the services necessary to access medical and psychological benefits.” 44. The Inter-American Commission “note[d] that the State has not made efforts to provide the next of kin of the victims with access to medical care under the terms ordered by the Court, but rather, on the contrary, [...] the responsibility falls on the victims to 'register' in the system that is provided for the general population.” In this regard, “it consider[ed] that it is the State’s obligation to manage the registration of victims in order for them to obtain health services, and that the public health systems accessible to the general population do not necessarily respond to the specific needs required for this measure of reparation.” It also considered that this obligation is not exhausted with the mere registration of the victims in the Integral Health System, SIS. It also reiterated “that the implementation of health services for victims must be differentiated, individualized, preferential, comprehensive, and provided by way of specialized institutions and personnel [and] should be provided immediately and avoiding subjecting the beneficiaries to new bureaucratic procedures or otherwise hindering their access to such care.” D.3) Considerations of the Court 45. The Court positively values the State’s expressed commitment to provide medical and psychological treatment to the victims. It also values the actions taken by the State in connection with the possibility of providing victims with access to the Integral Health System, SIS, and extending its coverage to human rights victims declared by this Court, as an implementation principle of this measure. However, the Court must note that the provision of appropriate treatment for as long as is necessary, as well as provision of medications, is an obligation requiring immediate compliance and is continuous in nature, to which it does not end with the registration of the victims’ next of kin in the Integral Health System. 49 46. Notwithstanding the measures taken by the State in regards to the general health system, it is necessary that it grant preferential treatment to the victims, 50 which must be provided in response to the suffering derived from the violations declared in the Judgment. 51 In that regard, the Court has indicated the delivery of social services that the State provides individuals cannot be confused with the reparations entitled to declared victims of human rights violations due to the specific damage generated from the violations. 52 Therefore, the Court considers that the victims should receive differential treatment in relation to the process and procedures that they need to carry out in order to be treated by State institutions. 53 This is particularly relevant in this case given the arguments of the 49 Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 20, 2009, Considering clause 30. 50 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering clause 30; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2013, Considering clause 11. 51 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005, Series C No. 132, para. 101, and Case of Baldeón García V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause 31. 52 Cf. Case of González et al. (“the Cotton Fields”) V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009, Series C No. 205, para. 529, and Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2013, Considering clause 45. 53 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause 28, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez 20