treatment within the prison, it should have established a mechanism or protocol to ensure prompt and effective medical care, particularly in the event of an emergency, which was not demonstrated in this case, particularly regarding the procedures established for outpatient hospital appointments (supra para. 199). In addition, Mrs. Chinchilla encountered a number of difficulties in accessing health care for her disability; she was limited in her environment and no staff members were assigned to assist her or help her move around the COF. Finally, the State did not adopt sufficient measures of accessibility or make reasonable accommodation to guarantee her the exercise of that right, particularly reasonable access to a means of rehabilitation when her health deteriorated. Consequently, she was placed in precarious conditions of detention incompatible with the right of every person with a disability to have his right to physical and mental integrity respected, on an equal basis with other persons, without discrimination (supra paras. 218 and 219). Furthermore, on the day of her death the State did not diligently ensure proper medical attention in an emergency, given the risk implied by her health condition (supra paras. 222 and 223). 225. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the State is responsible for failing to fulfil its international obligations to guarantee the rights to personal integrity and to life, recognized in Articles 5(1) and 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval. VII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention) A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 226. Regarding the actions of the enforcement judges in granting authorization to leave the prison in relation to ensuring the right to health, the Commission considered that the judge of the Second Enforcement Court received consistent and regular information about Mrs. Chinchilla’s health condition, and its impact on her life and personal integrity, through the certifications, communications and information contained in the files of requests for permission to attend medical appointments and those related to the incidental motions for early release. Therefore, the judge was obliged to offer judicial protection in relation to her various ailments and the medical treatment provided to her at the COF; however, the judge’s actions were limited to granting or denying Mrs. Chinchilla permission to leave prison to attend appointments. 227. With regard to the action of the judges in the incidental motions for early release vis à vis ensuring her right to health, the Commission noted that their role was limited to deciding whether or not Mrs. Chinchilla suffered from a terminal illness in order to rule on the motion and, in the last of these motions, the judge strayed completely from the issue of her health, stating that the main point of this remedy was not to afford a person the possibility of dying with dignity but rather to reward heroic acts. The Commission concluded that, aside from the communications that Mrs. Chinchilla could send to the judge, there was no formal remedy available for her to denounce the harm to her health resulting from the lack of adequate treatment, or to satisfy her need to be provided with conditions compatible with her dignity. Thus, the State did not ensure effective judicial protection of her rights to a life with dignity and personal integrity, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 71