deprived of their liberty, Article 14(2) of the CRPD establishes that States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees […] in compliance with the objectives and principles of the […] Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.57 48. Previously, in a case related to the confinement of a person with mental disabilities, the Inter-American Court ruled on the internment of Mr. Damião Ximenes Lopes for psychiatric treatment at the Casa de Reposo Guararapes, a private care center that operated within the Brazilian public health system. In this case, the Court considered that States must ensure the provision of effective health care services to persons with mental disabilities; this duty entails the obligation of the State to ensure access to basic health services to all persons.58 As to basic care and dignified conditions of incarceration, the Court considered that the place and the physical conditions in which treatment is provided must respect a person’s dignity, pursuant to Principle 13 of the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. The Inter-American Court considered that the precarious operating conditions of Casa de Reposo Guararapes, both in terms of the general conditions of the place and the medical care provided therein, were far from being adequate to administer decent health treatment and were in and of themselves incompatible with the appropriate protection of personal integrity and life, particularly as they affected persons who were extremely vulnerable due to their mental illness.59 49. Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval’s situation is totally different from the cases heard until now by this Court involving persons with disabilities and persons deprived of liberty. Accordingly, in the instant case, the Inter-American Court concluded that: 219. […] it is possible to conclude that the lack of accessibility and reasonable accommodation, placed [Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval] in a situation of discrimination and conditions of detention incompatible with the right of all persons with disabilities to have their right to physical and mental integrity respected, on an equal basis with others […].60(Underlining added) 50. It has been proven that the COF did not have adequate facilities to ensure that Mrs. Chinchilla could move around within the prison. For example, there was not enough space for the victim to get around in her wheelchair, or for the wheelchair itself to enter into the shower, so that the family needed to install handrails inside to prevent her from falling 57 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 14.2. 58 Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 128. Case Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paras. 131 and 132. It should be noted that the situation contextualized in the case of Mr. Ximenes Lopes differs from the one examined in the instant case. However, based on the precedent in the case of Ximenes Lopes, the Court has been concerned about how and under what conditions medical services were being provided to persons with disabilities; thus, it considers that, in the case of prisons, the State must fulfill its obligations of regulation, supervision and inspection. Also, it should be emphasized that this case was decided prior to the adoption of the IACHR Principles and Best Practices (2008) and the CRPD (2006). 59 Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, para. 219. 60 18