considered that the advanced age of the petitioners required the authorities to exercise special diligence for the resolution of their proceedings. 83 For its part, this Court has considered that that when vulnerable persons are involved, as in the case of a person with disabilities, it is imperative to take the pertinent actions, such as ordering the authorities to give priority to addressing and settling such cases, in order to avoid delays in their processing so as to ensure a prompt decision and execution thereof.84 60. Thus, it is pertinent to recall that any procedure initiated by a vulnerable person, including requests for permission to receive medical treatment, implies a reinforced obligation to respect and ensure his or her rights. This reinforced obligation particularly affects all judicial authorities responsible for, or with knowledge of, procedures related to the health condition of a person with disabilities. Therefore, in cases such as those considered by the judges responsible for the enforcement of sentences, it is essential that, in consideration of the right to judicial protection, they bear in mind the specificities related to the vulnerability of persons who have recourse to them, in order to avoid perpetrating further human rights violations and addressing those that arise. It is clear that these standards should have been observed and could have served to prevent the health problems suffered by Mrs. Chinchilla, since, in addition to being a disabled woman, who could potentially reach an advanced age, she was a person deprived of liberty. 61. It is for this reason that, for example, to require a person to submit a request to attend a medical appointment eight days in advance or otherwise it would be denied, without taking into account that her advanced clinical symptoms showed a deterioration in her health, showed a failure to act with exceptional diligence. It is also important to stress that it was demonstrated that the COF did not have the infrastructure or the specialized medical care to provide Mrs. Chinchilla with adequate living conditions and appropriate rehabilitation. To the foregoing we should add that there is a direct and significant link between disability, on the one hand, and poverty and social exclusion, on the other, even within prisons.85 62. A total absence of accessibility or a deficient policy of accessibility to public spaces and services for persons with physical or mental impairments implies a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. However, to assume that by adopting certain measures of accessibility without necessarily studying the specific situation of the disabled person, and their personal needs to ensure effective enjoyment of a right, exacerbates the situation of inequality and discrimination. ECHR, Case of Jablonská v. Poland, (No.60225/00), Judgment of March 9, 2004. Final, June 9, 2004, para. 43 and Case of Codarcea v. Romania, (No. 31675/04), Judgment of June 2, 2009. Final, September 2, 2009, para. 89. Likewise, Case of Styranowski v. Poland, (No. 28616/95), Judgment of October 30, 1998, para. 57 and Case of Krzak v. Poland, (No. 51515/99), Judgment of April 6, 2004. Final, July 7, 2004, para. 42. 83 Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 196. 84 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149 para. 104 and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 196, para. 201. 85 23