22. In the instant case, given Mrs. Chinchilla’s circumstances and her serious degenerative health condition, specialized assistance would certainly have been essential to support the victim in her daily activities. As we can confirm, under the new model of disability assistance does not necessarily violate the principle of independence of disabled persons, especially those with severe disabilities. 23. However, it should be emphasized that such assistance will not be necessary in all cases, since the social model of disability ultimately aims to ensure the full inclusion of persons with disabilities, at all times encouraging their independence and autonomy. For this reason, this Court must assess the particular circumstances of each specific case, to determine if, in addition to measures of accessibility and reasonable accommodation currently emanating from international law on the rights of persons with disabilities, it would be necessary to provide assistance from specialized staff,26 if required. To complement this, the granting of specialized assistance within the human rights model of disability cannot, and should not, materialize as a rule that operates in all cases; on the contrary, the offer of such assistance should be something exceptional that will depend solely on the nature of the circumstances surrounding future cases that this Court has the opportunity to hear, especially if we bear in mind that nowadays a wide range of physical, mental, intellectual, sensory and social limitations exist, each of these affecting individuals with a different intensity. 24. This prospective interpretative exercise by the Inter-American Court will be crucial in subsequent cases, because in some circumstances assistance is not only important, but indispensable, for certain types of physical, mental or sensory limitations or impairments;27 for many other cases, providing assistance instead of implementing measures of accessibility and reasonable accommodation, could be regarded as a perpetuation of the clinical model of disability. By virtue of the foregoing, the advances achieved in the instant Judgment provide a starting point and a reference for envisaging situations and conditions in which specialized assistance will be necessary. II. LACK OF MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE WOMEN’S ORIENTATION CENTER AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH: THE DUTY OF PREVENTION IN RELATION TO PRISON CONDITIONS 25. Although the American Convention does not expressly mention all the conditions of detention that affect persons deprived of liberty, since it only establishes that everyone has the right to have his life and personal integrity respected and that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has gradually incorporated, through Articles 4 and 5 of the Pact of San José, the principal standards on prison conditions and the duty of prevention that States must guarantee to persons deprived of liberty. For example, pursuant In this regard, the ECHR’s case law has been very emphatic in determining that assistance must be provided by qualified persons and not depend on the availability and willingness of the victim’s fellow prison inmates. See: Cf. ECHR, Case of Farbtuhs v. Latvia, No. 4672/02, of December 2, 2004, and Case of Topekhin v. Russia, No. 78774/13, Judgment of May 10, 2016. 26 27 42. Cf. World Health Organization and World Bank, World Report on Disability, published in 2011, p. 41 and 9