types of limitations or barriers commonly encountered by people with disabilities in society, are, among others, physical or architectural barriers, and communication, attitudinal or socioeconomic barriers.10 12. This vision, now embraced by the Inter-American Court in its case law, is of vital importance for all persons with some form of physical, mental, intellectual, sensory or social impairment in the inter-American region, as it constitutes a means through which the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights delivers justice on a topic that had been little explored in its almost thirty-seven years of existence. 13. Another point of the utmost importance in the present decision is that the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights refers, for the first time, to several values established in Article 3 of the CRPD as guiding principles of that international treaty. Thus, the Judgment refers to the principles of i) inherent dignity, individual autonomy and independence of persons (Art. 3. a), ii) equality of opportunity and non-discrimination (Art. 3. b and e), iii) full and effective participation and inclusion in society (Art. 3. c) and iv) accessibility (Art. 3. f). In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated: 208. […]. In this sense, States have the obligation to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities through equality of conditions, opportunities and participation in all spheres of society and to ensure that regulatory or de facto limitations are dismantled. Consequently, States must promote social inclusion practices and adopt affirmative measures to remove such barriers. […] 214. The right to accessibility from the perspective of disability includes the obligation to adapt the environment in which a person with any impairment can function and enjoy the greatest independence possible, in order to participate fully in all aspects of life on an equal basis with others. In the case of individuals who have difficulties with physical mobility, the content of the right to freedom of movement implies that States are required to identify the obstacles and the barriers to access and, consequently, proceed to eliminate or adapt them, thereby ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to facilities or services and can enjoy personal mobility with the greatest independence possible. 215. Having regard to the foregoing criteria, the Court considers that the State had the obligation to ensure accessibility to persons with disabilities who are deprived of their liberty, in this case to the alleged victim, in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination and the interrelated elements for the protection of health, namely, availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, including the implementation of reasonable and necessary accommodation in the prison, to enable her to live with the greatest independence possible and in equality of conditions with other persons deprived of their liberty.11 (Underlining added) 14. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter “CRPD”) has asserted that States have an obligation to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities through equal conditions for their enjoyment and exercise of all rights, in all spheres and levels within society. Furthermore, the Committee, in its analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, has noted that in order to configure these conditions throughout society it is necessary to take into consideration universal design - of products, environments, programs and services - to be used by all people, whether disabled or not.12 Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, para. 207. 10 Cf. Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016, Series C No. 312, paras. 208, 214 and 215. 11 In this regard, the CRPD considers that universal design does not exclude technical support for specific groups of persons with disabilities, when needed. Under this perspective, the concept of universal design adopted by the CRPD constitutes an element of vital importance for the States that form part of the international corpus juris for the protection of human rights of persons with disabilities. In this sense, General Comment No. 2 of the CRPD has stated that the strict application of universal design to all new goods, products, facilities, etc., should 12 5