she is dangerously cold, risks developing sores because her bed is too hard or unreachable, and she is unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without greatest difficulty, constituted degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention. 319 213. For its part, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considered the case of a disabled person who alleged that his cell was inadequate for a person with a disability and that the adjustments made by the prison authorities were insufficient, since the size of the bathroom was not adapted for someone using a wheelchair, with essential safety features and he could not move around by himself to reach the toilet and the shower, so that he had to rely on assistance from a nurse or some other person, among other reasons.320 The Committee took into account the fact that the State had carried out necessary work and modifications to eliminate the step that prevented independent access to the toilet and shower and that the authorities verified in situ the existence and operation of elevators, an access door to the recreation yard, specially modified for that person, and the existence and operation of a button to call the nurse, who provided assistance 24 hours a day. The Committee, in turn, offered the following considerations: 8.5 The Committee recalls that, under Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention, persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty have the right to be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of the Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation. It further recalls that accessibility is a general principle of the Convention and, as such, also applies to situations in which persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that prisons afford accessibility to all persons with disabilities who are deprived of their liberty. Accordingly, States parties must adopt all relevant measures, including the identification and removal of obstacles and barriers to access, so that persons with disabilities who are deprived of their liberty may live independently and participate fully in all aspects of daily life in their place of detention; such measures include ensuring their access, on an equal basis with others, to the various areas and services, such as bathrooms, yards, libraries, study areas, workshops and medical, psychological, social and legal services. In the case under review, the Committee acknowledges the accommodations made by the State party in order to remove the barriers that impeded the author’s access to areas within the physical environment of the prison. However, the Committee considers that the State party has not irrefutably demonstrated that the accommodations made in the prison complex are sufficient to ensure the author’s independent (insofar as possible) access to the bathroom and shower, recreation yard and nursing service. The Committee observes in this connection that the State party has not asserted that there are any obstacles that would prevent it from taking the necessary measures to facilitate the author’s mobility or denied the author’s allegations that architectural barriers to accessibility persist. Consequently, the Committee considers that, in the absence of sufficient explanations, the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9, paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), and Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 8.6 Having reached the above conclusion, and given the circumstances of the case, the Committee considers that, in light of the lack of accessibility and a sufficient degree of reasonable accommodation, the author has been placed in substandard conditions of detention that are incompatible with the right set forth in Article 17 of the Convention. 8.7 The Committee recalls that the failure to adopt relevant measures and to provide sufficient reasonable accommodation when they are required by persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty may constitute a breach of Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In the present case, however, the Committee does not consider that it has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention.321 214. The right to accessibility from the perspective of disability includes the obligation to adapt the environment so that a person with any impairment can function and enjoy the 319 ECHR, Price v. United Kingdom, No. 33394/96, Judgment of July 10, 2001, para. 30. It indicated that “he has developed scabs on a number of occasions owing to the lack of a special mattress to prevent bedsores and his movements are extremely limited. In practice he can only perform his basic needs through the use of instruments that are placed in his bed and the lack of assistance of third parties does not enable him to take daily care of his hygiene.” 320 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, X v. Argentina, Communication No 8/2012 (Argentina) of June 18, 2014. 321 67