discrimination for any of the prohibited reasons and, in addition, must ensure physical accessibility through adequate access to buildings for persons with disabilities.76 In the case of prisons, it also implies physical accessibility to the means of transport covering the route from the prison to the hospital or medical center where the health service is to be provided. 77 58. With regard to the type of reasonable accommodation that should be provided to persons with disabilities in prisons to ensure their right to health, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that part of a State’s obligations as guarantor of the integrity of persons under its care, may include the provision of prosthetic devices,78 appropriate orthopedic material79 or special diets.80 In the case of Mrs. Chinchilla, such reasonable accommodation should also have been observed by the State of Guatemala to ensure her right to health, beyond physical accessibility within the COF facilities. 59. Another of the adjustments to be made, considering the specific vulnerability of persons with disabilities, relates to the modification of procedural matters. In order to ensure the reasonableness of the waiting period in proceedings that involve vulnerable persons, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that the authorities must act with exceptional diligence.81 In this regard, the judicial authorities have a duty to exercise exceptional diligence in a proceeding involving a person whose specific condition requires immediate attention, for example someone with HIV/AIDS, since what is at stake is of crucial importance (for their state of health).82 Likewise, the European Court has also Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 14, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), (Twenty-second Session, 2000), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000), para. 12. 76 The Constitutional Court of Colombia protects the right to health of those subject to special constitutional protection, such as persons with disabilities, including persons deprived of liberty. Under the Principle of integrality of the right to health, the Constitutional Court has indicated that although transport per se is not a medical service, in certain circumstances, access to medical services depends upon the patient being transferred to a place where he can receive medical care. Thus, in the context of the right to health, everyone is entitled to have the barriers and obstacles removed that prevent a person from having access to health services they need. Cf. T-760-08, 31 July 2008. Magistrate José Manuel Cepeda Espinosa, Section 4.5.1 and 4.4.6.2. Assuming that reasonable adjustments are made to guarantee a person with disabilities deprived of liberty access to the right to health, the transportation provided to cover the route between the prison and the place that provides the medical service must be adapted to the needs of the person who will use that transport. For its part, the ECHR has also made reference to transportation as a means to ensure medical care for personas deprived of liberty. See: Cf. ECHR, Case of Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, Judgment of December 14, 2012, paras. 112-117 and, more recently, Case of Thopekin v. Russia, No. 78774/13, Judgment of May 10, 2016. 77 78 See: ECHR, Case of Zarzycki v. Poland, No. 15351/03, Judgment of March 12, 2013, Fourth Section. 79 See: ECHR, Case of Vasilvey v. Russia, No. 28370/5, Judgment of January 10, 2012, First Section. 80 See: ECHR, Case Fane Ciobanu v. Romania, No. 27240/03, Judgment of October 11, 2011, Third Section. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 195; and ECHR Case H. v. United Kingdom, No. 9580/81, Judgment of July 8, 1987, para. 85. 81 ECHR, Case of H. v. the United Kingdom, (No. 9580/81), Judgment of July 8, 1987, para. 85; Case of X. v. France, (No. 18020/91), Judgment of March 31, 1992, para. 47. Similarly, see Case of A. et al. v. Denmark, (No. 20826/92), Judgment of February 8, 1996), para. 78. 82 22