frequency and continuity required [which] would have allowed him to become an adult with better chances of being able to manage on his own”339. As to the immediacy of the treatment that Sebastián Furlan should have received, the expert witness pointed out that “at that age, the prefrontal cortex responsible for executive functions is in a phase of rapid growth. Because of this, it is not surprising that he had and still has executive dysfunction.” 340 Therefore, the expert witness concluded that Sebastián Furlan “had sustained a severe brain injury, resulting in a fracture of the right temporal bone, for which he should have been treated in an intensive care unit.” 341 198. Finally, the expert witness Rodríguez stated: In this case, during the years after the [cranial encephalic trauma], when the boy was in school, steps should have been taken to address the behavioral, social, cognitive aspects (which were surely compromised), and also to be near the family to guide them and detect the potential dysfunctions which often occur. All this required an interdisciplinary team. Psychopathological treatment was indicated but this was not sufficient; if the hospital could not provide this approach, and at that time there was no institution within the public health system that could, he should have been referred to a private institution.342 199. Furthermore, the Court notes that in the context of the civil proceeding the two suicide attempts by Sebastián Furlan were reported (supra para. 89). Thus, the Court considers that this information was brought to the attention of the judge, evidencing the problems experienced by Sebastián Furlan in the early stages of rehabilitation and his need for specialized medical care given his vulnerable situation, which required greater promptness for the completion of the process. 200. Another situation that showed that Sebastián Furlan’s situation was urgent was the incident that triggered his preventive detention on February 21, 1994, so that he could undergo psychiatric examination the following day in order to “determine whether he was in a fit condition to render a preliminary examination statement or whether he was a danger to himself and to others” (supra para. 107). On said occasion, the Trial Court ordered the hospitalization of Sebastián Furlan in a specialized center in order to guarantee his safety and psychiatric treatment, taking into account the medical reports presented by professional psychiatrists that confirmed his serious health condition (supra para. 108). During his hospitalization at Evita Hospital, the trial court constantly assessed his mental health condition based on an analysis of the medical reports submitted by the staff at the Hospital and at other state medical institutions, who took into account the grave mental disorders and the difficult family situation of Sebastián Furlán. The Court emphasizes that the aforementioned facts were included in the case file of the civil proceeding as elements that proved the grave situation that Sebastián Furlan was facing (supra para. 89). However, these facts were not taken into consideration the judge hearing the case for the purpose speeding up the proceedings. 201. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it relevant to recall that the civil suit for damages involved a minor, and later on an adult, with disabilities, which implied an even greater obligation to respect and guarantee his rights. Particularly, with respect to the courts that heard said suit, it was essential for them to take into consideration the special 339 Affidavit rendered by Doctor Estela del Carmen Rodríguez, page 763. 340 Affidavit rendered by Doctor Estela del Carmen Rodríguez, page 765. 341 Affidavit rendered by Doctor Estela del Carmen Rodríguez, page 765. 342 Affidavit rendered by Doctor Estela del Carmen Rodríguez, page 765. 64