humane treatment. The Commission will examine the situation subsequent to 2006-2007 hereunder, in order to adjudge whether the violations of the rights to life and humane treatment ceased after these two years. 133. The Commission has highlighted States’ heightened obligation when victims are vulnerable on multiple fronts, such as their condition as very low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS.119 In the section on general standards of the instant report, the Commission described the various requirements of medical care for persons with HIV/AIDS that must be met so it can be regarded as adequate and comprehensive. 134. In the instant case, the IACHR notes that in different communications submitted by the petitioners, they provided information on the deterioration of the health status of the victims as well as the different gaps in public health care service. 135. Firstly, petitioners introduced information on the periods of short supply of antiretroviral medicine at some of the public hospitals where the victims were receiving care. In this regard, the IACHR takes note that in 2008, several public hospitals, some of which treated the victims, reported that they did not have antiretroviral medicine for the treatment of persons with HIV/AIDS. 136. Secondly, the petitioners raised issues of accessibility faced by many victims in order to obtain health treatment, as a consequence of the low number of public health care facilities providing services to persons with HIV/AIDS. The Commission notes that, based on the proven facts, the victims are economically disadvantaged persons and many of them do not live in the capital city of Guatemala, but in other areas far removed from it, which prevented them from receiving health treatment. The State recognized on its own that after the transfer of the patients in 2006-2007, “the persons had to go to Guatemala City to receive their treatment” and eventually units were created in other areas of the country to provide treatment. 137. Thirdly, the petitioners alleged that the public health care facilities were not sufficiently staffed. They also claimed that the necessary diagnostic examinations and periodic monitoring required for proper management of the disease were not conducted, and this made conditions ripe for the appearance of opportunistic diseases, which were not properly treated either. 138. The IACHR notes that the State failed to refute the alleged information. The Commission notices that the information on treatment subsequent to 2006-2007 is confined to indicating that the victims would show up for their appointments and that they were in good health, while not refuting the specific gaps charged by the petitioners and described in the preceding paragraphs. In fact, the State failed to provide any information at all about some of the victims. The IACHR further notes that there is no evidence in the case file to indicate that the competent health officials conducted any monitoring of the supervision or oversight of treatment for persons with HIV/AIDS in the public sector in general, and for the victims in particular. 139. On the contrary, the State acknowledged that there were periods of short supply. Additionally, the Ombudsman for Human Rights denounced in 2010 the “lack of comprehensive care and access to medicine that the patients living with HIV/AIDS were subjected to nationwide.” Said official also denounced the same situation in 2012. 140. Fourthly, the Commission takes note that the alleged victims include women of reproductive age. The IACHR stresses that these women must receive different treatment than the others, which is tailor to their particular condition.120 The Commission notes that in the instant case, the State did not provided any information pertaining to the specific services provided for said persons. 141. Based on the information available to it, the Commission finds that while the State did begin to implement some treatment for persons living with HIV/AIDS in the public sector after 2006-2007, said 119 IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Merits, TGGL, Ecuador, November 5, 2013, par. 192. 120 IACHR. Report: Access to maternal health services from a human rights perspective. June 7, 2010, par. 38. 34