obligation of the States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)). 330 234. In this chapter the Court will analyze the judicial response of the State in light of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, in order to determine if the State fulfilled its international obligations in relation to: a) the actions of the Sentence Enforcement Court in relation to the health condition and disability of the presumed victim; and b) the obligation to investigate her death. B.1) Actions of the Sentence Enforcement Court regarding the health condition of the alleged victim 235. Based on the arguments put forward, it is pertinent to determine whether the actions of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court, which was involved in the facts of the case, adequately ensured the alleged victim´s rights to personal integrity and to life, by affording her judicial guarantees and effective judicial remedies to which she also had a right, in relation to: a) the requests for permission to leave the COF to receive medical treatment in public hospitals; b) adequate follow-up of her health condition when ruling on the incidental motions for early release. 236. Control of the legality of acts of the public administration that affect, or could affect the rights, guarantees or benefits to which persons deprived of liberty are entitled, as well as the periodic control of conditions of deprivation of liberty and supervision of the execution of, or compliance with, punishments, must be under the responsibility of competent, independent and impartial judges and tribunals. Member States of the Organization of American States shall ensure the necessary resources for the establishment and effectiveness of judicial bodies of control and supervision of punishments, and shall provide the necessary resources for them to function adequately. 331 As to the fundamental role of the sentence enforcement judges in protecting the rights of seriously ill persons, such “judicial officials must act with diligence, independence and humanity in cases where it is duly established that there is an imminent risk to the life of the individual owing to their deteriorated health or a fatal illness.”332 237. At the same time, Article 13 of the CRPD establishes the scope of the right of access to justice of persons with disabilities and consequently, the obligations that the States must assume. Specifically, it states that: i) States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages. ii) In order to help ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 91, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 237 330 Principle VI (Judicial Control and Enforcement of Sentences) of the Principles and Best Practices for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 331 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, December 31, 2011, para. 300. 332 74