the Court considers that the assumptions required to order the State to conduct a new criminal investigation of the facts, or to reopen the investigation already conducted, are not present in this case. C.2 Construction of a hospital for persons deprived of liberty 281. As a measure of reparation, the representatives requested the “construction of [a] Hospital for Persons Deprived of Liberty, in Fraijanes, Guatemala, in honor of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla; this hospital would provide treatment for persons deprived of their liberty in any medical situation.” Also, in their brief of final arguments the representatives held that “[one] of the main difficulties faced by María Inés Chinchilla and her family was the impossibility of receiving medical care in the prison, which ultimately caused her death. This situation made it enormously complicated for her to obtain authorizations and transfers to health care centers, and also led to discrimination and mistreatment by the medical staff, which is not trained and sensitized to deal with persons deprived of liberty.” 282. In this regard, the State argued that “it already has public hospitals, […] that inmates can attend, so there is no need to create a hospital specifically to treat persons deprived of liberty.” It also reported that in 2015 the first clinic was opened to treat inmates at the Pavoncito Prison Center in the Fraijanes complex. 283. As mentioned previously, the Court has considered that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages proven, and the measures requested to repair the resulting harm (supra para. 262). From the facts of this case, it does not appear that the lack of medical care or adequate treatment for Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval was due to the absence of a medical area in the COF or of public hospitals exclusively for persons deprived of their liberty. Thus, the Court considers that the measure of reparation requested by the representatives, involving the construction of a hospital to honor the memory of Mrs. Chinchilla, has no causal nexus with the facts of this case and that their request has not been duly justified, for which reason there is no need to order it. C.3 Adoption of rules on an effective remedy to protect the health of persons deprived of liberty 284. In its merits report, the Commission recommended “the adoption of rules on a prompt and effective judicial remedy to protect the rights to life and personal integrity where the health needs of persons deprived of liberty are concerned,” as a measure of non-repetition. 285. The State argued that it already has “adequate and timely mechanisms or procedures to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of liberty; for this purpose, certain rules exist within the current legal system, specifically created to protect the human rights of prisoners who are serving their sentences.” It cited the example of the Penitentiary System Law of 2006 and its implementing regulations of 2011, and added that it “has adapted and modified the protocols for institutional strengthening used in all judicial actions […], in observance of the State’s commitments, by ratifying different international instruments.” Likewise, in its brief of final arguments it indicated that “the State considers that the measure of reparation under discussion is already part of the legal and political framework and has been put into effect and is fully implemented.” 286. In this case, the Commission did not specifically indicate which rules or practices should have been regulated by the State so that the alleged victim could have access to a remedy to denounce the harm caused to her health, or the lack of conditions compatible with her dignity. Therefore, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to analyze 88