294. The State argued that “to guarantee that persons deprived of liberty have optimal conditions so that they can carry out their activities without limitations due to their physical impairments, the Women´s Orientation Center has “mechanisms or procedures to ensure that disabled women detained at the Women’s Orientation Center -COF- Fraijanes, have access to adequate conditions for serving their sentences.” 370 The State considered that the reparation measures under discussion “already [exist] in [its] legal and political framework” as a result of the obligations assumed in compliance with international provisions; and that “all persons with a physical disability are treated according to their needs and in compliance with international standards.” Furthermore, it indicated that it has implemented a new public policy entitled “the National Policy of Prison Reform 2014-2024.” 295. The Court notes that the State recognizes its international obligations to adopt pertinent measures and provide reasonable accommodation to ensure adequate conditions and full accessibility to persons with disabilities who are currently deprived of their liberty or who will be admitted to the Women´s Orientation Center in future, and to other prisons. On the understanding that the State will observe the standards mentioned in this judgment, and considering that the Commission and the representatives have not provided clear, specific and up-to-date information to determine the current needs of persons with disabilities detained at the Women’s Orientation Center, or in other prisons, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to order the measures of reparation requested in this regard. D. Compensation 296. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to provide comprehensive reparation for the human rights violations declared in the report [on merits] both in the material and the moral aspects.” 297. The representatives argued that the State must pay fair compensation to the next-of-kin for the death of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval and reimburse them for the expenses incurred in their actions before the authorities in relation to this proceeding. 298. In its answer, the State argued that it “is not responsible for any of the violations alleged” and, “consequently, the State of Guatemala should not have to compensate the presumed victims.” Likewise, in its final arguments the State indicated that “within the framework of Guatemala’s legislation, if the petitioners suspected any supposed negligence or lack of medical attention, they had the right to take legal action for the harm and damage caused.” 299. The Court has considered that comprehensive and adequate reparation cannot be limited to the payment of compensation to victims or their next of kin;371 depending on the case, measures of rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are also necessary. Nevertheless, this Court reiterates that, where national mechanisms exist to define Based on an official letter dated June 24, 2014, from the General Directorate of the Prison System, of the Ministry of the Interior, the State added that such persons “are examined by the doctor assigned to that detention center when they require such assistance; also, a request is made to the jurisdictional body to order the National Institute of Forensic Sciences of Guatemala to send a specialist of that Institute to the prison to evaluate the inmates, so that they can receive specialized care at the national hospitals. In addition, the inmates with mental disabilities are referred as outpatients to the "Federico Mora" National Mental Health Hospital, in Zone 18, for ambulatory treatment and, if necessary, they are interned in that hospital during a crisis, for as long as the psychiatrists consider appropriate.” 370 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra, para. 219; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 339; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 206, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 186. 371 91