44 152. The Commission finds, therefore, that although Ms. Chinchilla was granted permission to go to medical appointments, some of them emergencies, at the COF, where she was confined, she lacked the possibility of receiving adequate treatment out of ignorance of the nature of her illnesses, which, as mentioned, required, among other things, regular monitoring, specialized equipment and medicines, as well as a special diet and constant care. 153. In this regard, the Commission sees that in the Barilo v. Ukraine, the European Court ruled on the medical treatment that a person with diabetes should receive, finding, that "the mere fact that a detainee was seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate.” 349 That tribunal has reiterated that the authorities “must also ensure that, where required by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic, and that there is a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee’s diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than treating them on a symptomatic basis.” 350 Furthermore, in other cases the European Court has taken into account the principle of equivalence of health care noted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, according to which, “a prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care, as well as appropriate diets, physiotherapy, rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility, in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community.”351 154. Thus, in the present case, having analyzed the various certifications and statements contained in the report, the Commission concludes that: (i) The correctional system did not provide Ms. Chinchilla the medication that she needed for her diabetes mellitus and she obtained it by her own means, contingent on her financial circumstances or the possibility of her relatives to provide it; (ii) the COF lacked the facilities and specialized staff either to offer her medical treatment or provide her with care in an emergency; (iii) the COF did not provide her with the food that she needed to control her illness and she obtained it either through their own means, contingent on her possibilities to do so, or through other COF inmates; (iv) there was no strategy in place in the COF designed to furnish it with the resources for preventing her illness from growing worse; and (v) the above situation had an impact on the evolution and worsening of Ms. Chinchilla’s diseases, which led, inter alia, to the amputation of one of her legs, diabetic retinopathy, and occlusive arteriosclerosis disease with an 80% chance of losing her other leg. 155. All these elements are sufficient to conclude that Ms. Chinchilla did not receive the medical treatment that she needed for her diabetes mellitus and related ailments. 3.3 The State’s response to Ms. Chinchilla’s disabled condition 156. In analyzing the response offered by the State of Guatemala in this case, the Commission believes that it must also take into account that, as a consequence of the evolution of her illness, Ms. Chinchilla acquired disabilities caused by the amputation of one of her legs and the progressive loss of her sight. 349 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Barilo v. Ukraine, Judgment of May 16, 2013, para 68. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“sort”:[“docnamesort%20Ascending”],”languageisocode”:[“ENG”],”res pondent”:[“UKR”],”documentcollectionid2”:[“GRANDCHAMBER”,”CHAMBER”],”violation”:[“3”],”itemid”:[“001-119675”]} 350 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Barilo v. Ukraine, Judgment of May 16, 2013, para 68. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“sort”:[“docnamesort%20Ascending”],”languageisocode”:[“ENG”],”res pondent”:[“UKR”],”documentcollectionid2”:[“GRANDCHAMBER”,”CHAMBER”],”violation”:[“3”],”itemid”:[“001-119675”]} 351 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 3rd General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1992 Ref.: CPT/Inf (93) 12 [EN] Publication Date: 4 June 1993, para. 38. Available at: http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/annual/rep-03.htm#III and cited in European Court of Human Rights, Case of Kudhobin v. Russia, Judgment of 6 October 2006, para. 38. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-77692