equality of conditions, opportunities and participation in all spheres of society314 and to ensure that regulatory or de facto limitations are dismantled. Therefore, States must promote social inclusion practices and adopt affirmative measures to remove such barriers.315 209. Regarding the specific situation of persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty, Article 14(2) of the CRPD establishes that States must ensure that “they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of the present Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.” 210. As to the health of persons with disabilities, Article 25 of the CRPD recognizes that “persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability,” and that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation.”316 Likewise, Article 26 of the CRPD requires States to “take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.” 211. In the case of Mircea Dumitrescu v. Romania, the European Court of Human Rights found that since the alleged victim was diabetic and disabled, he “belong[ed] to a particularly vulnerable group given his severe disability.” Considering his health and disability, the European Court held that when the authorities decide to place or keep disabled people in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing conditions that correspond to their special needs resulting from their disability.317 212. In that case, the European Court noted that the victim continually complained that he had not been provided with his own wheelchair, that there were insufficient access ramps in the prison and that the toilet facilities and the vehicle in which he was transported had not been adapted. The Court considered that the conditions of detention endured by the victim, overall, for more than two years, would have caused him unnecessary and avoidable physical and mental suffering, diminishing his human dignity and amounting to inhuman treatment.318 Furthermore, in the case of Price v. the United Kingdom, which concerned a disabled person in detention, the European Court found that although there was no intention to humiliate or debase the victim, to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 134, and Case Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 292. See also: Article 5 of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. 314 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 134, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 292. See also: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 5, para. 13. 315 In particular, States must provide those health services needed by persons with disabilities, specifically because of their disabilities, including early identification and intervention as appropriate, and services designed to minimize and prevent further disabilities; require health professionals to provide care of the same quality to persons with disabilities as to others, on the basis of free and informed consent by, inter alia, raising awareness of the human rights, dignity, autonomy and needs of persons with disabilities through training and the promulgation of ethical standards for public and private health care. 316 ECHR: Mircea Dumitrescu v. Romania, No. 14609/10, Judgment of July 30, 2013, para. 59; ZH v. Hungary, No. 28973/11, Judgment of November 8, 2012, para. 29; Jasinskis v. Lithuania, No. 45744/08, Judgment of December 21, 2010, para. 59; Farbtuhs v. Latvia, No. 4672/02, Judgment of December 2, 2004, para. 56, and Price v. United Kingdom, No. 33394/96, Judgment of July 10, 2001, para. 30. 317 318 ECHR, Mircea Dumitrescu v. Romania, No. 14609/10, Judgment of July 30, 2013, para. 64. 66