health,2 the conditions of detention of persons deprived of liberty 3 and the rights of persons with disabilities,4 in the specific case of Mrs. Chinchilla all the aforementioned elements converged which, in an interrelated manner, were decisive in the deterioration of her health within the COF. 4. Although I agree with the sense of the Judgment, I consider that the Inter-American Court could have approached the problem taking into account what really caused this case to reach the Inter-American System and, in particular, this jurisdictional body, namely: the implications for the “right to health” owing to a lack of adequate medical care when Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval was admitted to the COF, from the time she presented a condition of disability at the detention center, until her death in 2004. In this case, it is necessary to address and analyze the violations from the perspective of the “right to health” in two phases or moments that are distinct, but connected by the situations of fact that arose: a) from the moment when Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval was admitted to the COF, until the time when her leg was amputated and, b) from the time when the victim had to live with physical and sensory limitations in the COF, until the time of her death. 5. In this context, the “right to health” is of special importance for persons deprived of liberty, who cannot satisfy this right on their own account.5 If we consider the fact that from Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261 and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C. No. 298. 2 Among others: Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114; Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123; Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152; Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226; Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236; Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 241; Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260. 3 Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149; Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246; Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257; and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298. 4 In the Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that “the right to humane treatment of prisoners may also be violated by the severe conditions of confinement in which they are kept. In this sense, overcrowding generates a series of conditions that […] hinder access to basic services and health services of the prisons […]. This problem, common to all the countries of the region, is in turn the result of other serious structural deficiencies […].” It also established 5 2