greatest independence possible, thereby ensuring that he or she can participate fully in all aspects of life on an equal basis with others. In the case of individuals who have difficulties with physical mobility,322 the content of the right to freedom of movement implies that States are required to identify the obstacles and barriers to access and, consequently, proceed to eliminate or adapt them, thereby ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to facilities or services and can enjoy personal mobility with the greatest independence possible. 215. Having regard to the foregoing criteria, the Court considers that the State had the obligation to ensure accessibility to persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty, in this case to the alleged victim, in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination and the interrelated elements for the protection of health, namely, availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, including the provision of reasonable accommodation323 in the prison, to enable her to live with the greatest independence possible and in equality of conditions with other persons deprived of their liberty. 216. Likewise, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, the State should have facilitated her access to means that could reasonably support her rehabilitation had she not been in the State’s custody, and to prevent the development of new disabilities. In this regard, the expert Carlos Ríos Espinosa, a member of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, emphasized the importance of certain measures that the State should have taken, such as providing her with a prosthesis or ensuring that she had the support of professionals to help her understand and accept her new situation. Furthermore, he indicated that States have a duty to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to remove the barriers faced by disabled persons and guarantee them equal conditions for the enjoyment of their rights.324 217. In this case, Mrs. Chinchilla moved around in a wheelchair but, according to the socioeconomic report, experienced problems “because of the place’s very confined spaces”, that is, the prison’s physical limitations or architectural barriers. Thus, it was reasonable that the State should have adapted, at least minimally, the prison facilities to her condition of disability. As to the measures to facilitate her personal hygiene, the Court appreciates that the State installed a toilet and washbasin inside the individual cell allocated to her within the maternal wing. However, Mrs. Chinchilla’s daughter, Marta Maria Gantenbein Chinchilla, explained that the wheelchair did not fit in the shower, so she and her husband had to place handrails in the shower to prevent her from falling. They also had to pay a monthly “contribution” of three hundred quetzales so that she could stay in the maternal wing, plus one hundred quetzales to use the television, refrigerator and electric lighting. The State did not challenge this assertion; therefore, most of the accommodations made cannot be attributed to the State and were not sufficient to alleviate her conditions in detention as a Article 20 of the CRPD (Personal Mobility): States Parties shall take effective measures to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities, including by: a) Facilitating the personal mobility of persons with disabilities in the manner and at the time of their choice, and at affordable cost; b) Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to quality mobility aids, devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including by making them available at affordable cost; c) Providing training in mobility skills to persons with disabilities and to specialist staff working with persons with disabilities; d) Encouraging entities that produce mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies to take into account all aspects of mobility for persons with disabilities. 322 According to the European Court, among the reasonable accommodations that should be made to adapt the environment to the needs of disabled people deprived of liberty, are the following: assistance for communication; personal support to aid the mobility of persons with disabilities, and modifications to the physical facilities of the prison. Cf. ZH v Hungary, No. 28973/11, Judgment of November 8, 2012, para. 43; Grimailovs v. Latvia, No. 6087/03, Judgment of June 25, 2013, para. 162, and Vincent v. France, No. 6253/03, Judgment of October 24, 2006, para. 112. 323 324 Cf. Expert opinion of Carlos Ríos Espinosa rendered during the public hearing before the Court. 68