43. The dispute in this second moment or phase related to the impairment of the victim’s rights, is framed in two ways: on the one hand, poor accessibility within the COF in terms of movement inside her cell and around the prison area and, on the other, the lack of reasonable accommodation for her transfer to hospital to attend medical appointments, which was further exacerbated by Mrs. Chinchilla’s diabetes. 44. This Court has considered in previous cases that persons with disabilities are often subject to discrimination because of their condition; therefore, States must adopt legal, social, labor and any other type of measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination associated with disabilities, and to promote the full integration of such persons into society.54 45. It is important to note that any person in a vulnerable situation is entitled to special protection, given that the State has a special duty to satisfy the general obligations to respect and guarantee human rights. Thus, it is not sufficient for States to refrain from violating rights; it is also imperative that they adopt affirmative measures, to be determined according to the particular protection needs of the subject of rights, whether on account of his personal condition or specific circumstances, such as disability. Moreover, States have an obligation to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities through equality of conditions, opportunities and participation in all spheres of society to ensure that the limitations described are removed.55 46. In this sense, the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court has determined that the obligation to adopt affirmative measures in favor of persons with disabilities is also applicable in the context of prisons and to persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty. Indeed, given the State’s special role as guarantor of the rights of persons subject to its custody, this obligation to adopt affirmative measures is reinforced. In this regard, the social model based on human rights must also have an impact on persons who are physically confined within prisons; therefore, the facilities and their functionality within those detention centers should be designed and planned based on an approach to disability that ensures accessibility and the possibility of providing reasonable accommodation, as positive measures to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities who are serving a custodial sentence. 47. In relation to the right to health of persons with disabilities, the CRPD requires States Parties to recognize that disabled persons have the right to the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination for reasons of disability. In this sense, the States must adopt the pertinent measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to health services, taking into account issues of gender, including health rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, they must provide those health services needed by persons with disabilities, specifically because of their disabilities, including early identification and intervention as appropriate, and services designed to minimize and prevent further disabilities, including among children and older persons.56 As to the rights of persons with disabilities who are Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 105 and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 135. 54 Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 134 55 56 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 25 and 25.b). 17