physical disability: advances in the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the matter (paras. 9-24); II) the lack of medical care within the Women’s Orientation Center as a violation of the right to health: the duty of prevention in prison conditions (paras. 25-40); III) the right to health of persons with disabilities deprived of liberty: accessibility and reasonable accommodation in prison contexts (paras. 41-64); IV) the iura novit curia principle and the direct justiciability of the right to health in this case (paras. 6568); and V) Conclusions (paras. 69-78). I. MRS. CHINCHILLA SANDOVAL’S PHYSICAL DISABILITY: ADVANCES IN THE CASE LAW OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT IN THIS MATTER 9. Before addressing the central theme that elicits this opinion, I believe it is opportune to mention some of the advances achieved by the Inter-American Court in the case sub judice. In this sense, it is very important to emphasize that, unlike other cases heard by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, concerning alleged violations of several rights of the American Convention and of the international corpus juris for the protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities, the present judgment demonstrates, more convincingly, how the Inter-American System conceives disability, not from the standpoint of the assistentialist approach—or clinical model— that had prevailed in international law; but, in the case of Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval, the Inter-American Court embraces, to a large extent, the social model to address disability, which is developed and espoused in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “the CRPD”). 10. In the instant case, Mrs. Chinchilla acquired a physical disability after having her leg amputated as a consequence of deficient medical care in the treatment of her diabetes within the COF. Thus, from 2002 Mrs. Chinchilla Sandoval suffered physical limitations stemming both from her motor disability and the physical barriers in her environment. On this point, it is appropriate to emphasize that in the Judgment it was considered proven that there were numerous steps within the COF building that made it impossible for Mrs. Chinchilla to access all the prison areas independently, and that therefore she required assistance from her fellow inmates. Thus, in the present case, the victim faced physical difficulties in accessing basic services or recreational or medical facilities.8 Although Mrs. Chinchilla was transferred to the maternal area of the COF, and some modifications were made to her cell, she continued to encounter difficulties with the bathroom, which should have been adapted to the victim’s needs.9 11. Accordingly, following certain statements made by different organizations that have highlighted the need to move beyond the clinical model, the Court emphasized that: 207. In this regard, the Court notes that [the Conventions] take into account the social model for addressing disability, which implies that disability is not exclusively defined by the presence of a physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment, but is interrelated with the barriers and limitations that exist socially, and that prevent persons from exercising their rights effectively. The Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, para. 217 and footnote 325. 8 Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, para. 217. 9 4