implying the termination of the sentence or non-compliance with the obligation to ensure its implementation. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider whether keeping a person in prison would affect not only that individual’s health, but also the health of the other inmates whose opportunities to receive medical attention could be indirectly curtailed by the need to provide more resources to attend to a particular sick individual. 245. Therefore, the foregoing is conditional upon certain specific aspects of the case, such as the conditions in the prison or module where the sick inmate is confined; the practical possibilities of receiving adequate treatment for their illness; the prospects of being transferred to another place within or outside the prison system to receive care (either within the prison itself or by modifying the security regime); and, finally, the medical prognosis regarding any complications that could arise, assuming that the confinement is prolonged. In this sense, there are various ailments which, while not requiring the patient to stay in a hospital, make it necessary for them to remain in a place where they can be assisted with their daily activities, with special care that cannot be assured in prison, for example, in cases of chronic, neurodegenerative, terminal diseases or, in general, those requiring a level of attention that can only be provided by a specialized carer. 246. Moreover, when there are elements to indicate that a prisoner has suffered or could suffer serious consequences due to his precarious state of health, and when the punishment gravely endangers his life and integrity or is physically impossible to fulfil in the absence of physical and human resources within the prison center to address that situation, then the application of an alternative to a custodial sentence (for example, house arrest, change of security measures, early release, deferred sentence) can be justified as an exceptional measure. Such a decision, in addition to being justified for reasons of dignity and humanity, would eliminate institutional risks stemming from the deterioration of a person’s health or risk of death due to conditions within the prison. In any case, if the court does not adopt another alternative measure, it must exercise control over the administrative activities carried out previously and, if errors are found, order their immediate correction or reparation. 247. Certainly, in this case the purpose of the aforementioned incidental motions was to request early release, in which the alleged victim claimed the existence of a terminal illness or an exceptional situation. In other words, based on the reported situation, the judge had to decide whether or not to grant her the benefit of the remission of her sentence and consequently early release. It is necessary to stress that the foregoing considerations do not imply that enforcement judges are obliged in all cases to release persons deprived of liberty. The important point is that enforcement judges must act with great vigilance and due diligence based on the particular needs for protection of the person deprived of liberty and the rights in question, particularly if the disease can be complicated or aggravated, either by the person’s own circumstances, the lack of institutional capacity to address the situation or through negligence on the part of the prison authorities. Thus, in order to exercise adequate judicial control over the guarantees of persons deprived of liberty, the enforcement judges must base their decisions on a comprehensive assessment of evidentiary elements, particularly expert opinions and those of a technical nature, including prison visits or inspections to verify the situation described. Thus, whatever the final decision may be, it must be reflected in an adequate reasoning and a full justification. Rights Committee.” (…) 12. Recommends that Member States continue to endeavor to reduce prison overcrowding and, where appropriate, resort to non-custodial measures as alternatives to pretrial detention, to promote increased access to justice and legal defense mechanisms, to reinforce alternatives to imprisonment and to support rehabilitation and social reintegration programs, in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules).” 78