around in a “wheelchair,” which was a problem for her “because of the very confined spaces” in the prison and that “the patient’s state of mind and depression are of grave concern.” 206 134. On April 20, 2004, the judge asked the Central Prisons Board to issue an early release report.207 135. The hearing was scheduled for April 21, 2004. 208 On April 16, 2004, Mrs. Chinchilla requested that Dr. Luisa Amelia Morán García, the COF duty doctor, 209 be summoned to give evidence at the hearing. The judge confirmed receipt of the brief on April 19, 2004, and instructed that a summons be sent to the doctor so that she could submit a medical report. 210 The evidence hearing was held on April 21, 2004.211 136. The first to be questioned was the medical examiner of the Judiciary, who said that Mrs. Chinchilla had told him “that she does not receive treatment.” However, he answered “no” when asked if she was in danger of dying in the short term, but added that if she did not follow “an adequate diet and [did not] receive her treatment [Mrs. Chinchilla was] in imminent danger of death.” He said that “the endocrinologist is the person who would have to decide the type of treatment, and the quantities or doses, and the people to administer it would be the prison’s nursing staff”, but he did “not [know] whether or not the Center ha[d] the necessary medicines” and that “prisons do not have teams of specialists.” He added that “if [the patient] were to enter into a state of diabetic ketoacidosis and a secondary coma she would have the chance to receive help, but the time taken to transfer her to a facility that provides specialized care would be critical.” He specified that “…there is nothing with respect to cancer, only mention of a [tumor] or cervical lesion and it is Mrs. Chinchilla who claims to have cancer of the cervix.” Finally, when asked what sort of life prospects Mrs. Chinchilla could have “as a prisoner if the Women´s Orientation Center at Fraijanes did not have an endocrinologist”, he answered, “her quality of life will be poor.”212 137. The Public Prosecution Service medical examiner stated that Mrs. Chinchilla’s ailments “…are not considered a terminal illness” and “…she could be prescribed ambulatory medical treatment.” He said that “if the patient is not treated with drugs, she tends to suffer complications that at some point [could be] life-threatening” and that if she were to have a ketoacidosis crisis “she must receive medical treatment as soon as possible.” He said that he was not “familiar with the facilities [at the COF] in terms of health care and professional staff […] in the event of a complication” and that he was “not familiar with the specific medical care that the patient [illegible] at the prison… [and] the written records on the care that the patient Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Public Criminal Defense Institute. Social Work Unit. Socioeconomic Report of November 14, 2002 (evidence file, folios 812-818). 206 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Decision of the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of April 20, 2004 (evidence file, folio 858). 207 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Decision of the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court, April 16, 2004 (evidence file, folio 827). 208 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Public Criminal Defense Institute. Brief on behalf of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval of April 16, 2004 (evidence file, folio 828). 209 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Decision of the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of April 19, 2004 (evidence file, folio 829). 210 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96; Of. 7. Record of Evidence Hearing of April 21, 2004 (evidence file, folios 846-858). 211 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96; Of. 7. Record of Evidence Hearing of April 21, 2004 (evidence file, folios 846-858). 212 43