disabled person. In this case, the prison lacked adequate infrastructure, since the maternal area was small (although it did allow her to move around in a wheelchair) and she relied on other inmates and prison staff to be able to move to the common areas. Her fall took place on the steps that linked blocks “C” and “D” of the COF, while trying to “get down” from where she was and not having anyone to push her wheelchair (the cell was at the top of several steps, so she relied on other inmates to move around inside the maternal wing). 218. At the same time, regarding the practices and procedures required to allow Mrs. Chinchilla to leave the COF to attend her medical appointments in hospitals, she faced many difficulties in terms of physical access to transport, availability of vehicles and the limited time of the police who guarded her. For example, it was necessary for the guards to carry her and lift her into a “pick up” truck that was not suitable for transporting a person in a wheelchair. 325 She also alleged that she could not reach the telephones to communicate with her family. These situations show that Mrs. Chinchilla was limited in her environment and there were no staff assigned to help her move around. In this situation, it was reasonable for the State to take the necessary steps to guarantee her access to services, for example to have staff available to assist Mrs. Chinchilla and to mobilize her. However, in spite of the measures adopted, it is possible to conclude that no other steps were taken to alleviate her situation of disability, particularly by ensuring reasonable access to means for her rehabilitation when her health had deteriorated. 219. For the foregoing reasons, it is possible to conclude that the lack of accessibility and reasonable accommodation, placed the alleged victim in a situation of discrimination and conditions of detention incompatible with the right of all persons with disabilities to have their right to physical and mental integrity respected, on an equal basis with others, pursuant to Articles 5(1) and 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval. B.4 Response of the administrative authorities on the day of Mrs. Chinchilla’s death 220. Finally, it is pertinent to determine whether the care provided by the prison authorities, the medical staff of the COF and other State officials complied with the State’s obligation to provide the alleged victim with proper medical attention in an emergency, given the circumstances and the facts, and considering her health condition and the accident she had suffered. 221. The COF did not have the necessary equipment to provide emergency treatment to Mrs. Chinchilla in the event of a serious health complication, which could even be fatal Mrs. Gantenbein Chinchilla stated that her mother could not always attend medical appointments outside of the COF, because the hospital did not have sufficient guards and it was necessary pay for the gas of the vehicles that transported her, and provide food for the guards that accompanied her to hospital. She said that the police “… asked her[…] if [she] could help out with the gasoline;” that she was transported in a “police pick-up truck because the COF “… did not have ambulances or patrol cars;” that being in a wheelchair, her mother relied on other inmates to go out, as she needed to be carried because there were “too many steps to go up, both to the patio for visits and to the main entrance, where she would be collected by the pick-up truck.” In this regard, the State argued that whenever she required specialized care, this was provided through the appropriate legal procedure, meeting all the requirements, and it sought to prove this fact with a sworn statement of Mrs. Vincenta Tzamol Navichoc, the current Director of the Santa Teresa Detention Center for Women (Cf. Evidence file, folio 3623). However, as the representatives argued, the State’s witness was not acting as Director of the COF at the time of the facts, and therefore her statement does not have sufficient evidentiary value to support their the State’s argument. With respect to hospital care, Mrs. Chinchilla’s daughter said, “…my mother would be last because she was an inmate”, and so when it was lunch time, in order to make the guards wait for her she had to “…invite them to eat or to have a soft drink, or a little snack, or something like that, and they would agree to stay until the last minute so that my mother could be treated.” 325 69