63 prison. Additionally, the prison authorities themselves acknowledged that it was not possible this way to supervise the fair delivery of food. The Commission notes that the State did not submit information pertaining to the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Constitutional Chamber on this issue in its decision. 259. Lastly, the Commission notes that in its 2010 report, the Office of the Ombudsman of the Inhabitants of Costa Rica concluded that the CAI La Reform prison not only presented deficiencies in the walls and roofs infrastructure, but also the electrical fixtures and sanitation facilities. In response, the State acknowledged that at the CAI La Reforma facilities, the buildings “were built a long time ago” and therefore there is “deterioration” thereof. It claimed that that has happened because of “the use of the buildings, the destruction caused by the inmate population and also by the normal wear and tear on things” and, therefore, repairs would be made. It contended that “the population deprived of liberty itself breaks the rules of hygiene, showing improper hygiene habits (…) which is not attributable to the authorities.” 260. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State breached its obligation to provide minimum conditions of detention in keeping with human dignity in violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the victims in the instant case, who have served their prison term at CAI La Reforma. 2. Mr. Rojas Madrigal’s access to health services 261. Both the Commission and the Court have established that the State has the duty, as guarantor of the health of the persons in its custody, to provide detainees with regular medical checkups and care and adequate treatment whenever needed.357 As for the medical services that must be provided to them, the Court has cited the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,358 which state that “the medical officer shall see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after his admission and thereafter as necessary, with a view particularly to the discovery of physical or mental illness and the taking of all necessary measures.”359 Likewise, Principle 24 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “a proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. This care and treatment shall be provided free of charge.”360 357 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case 11.535, Pedro Miguel Vera Vera, Ecuador, February 24, 2010, para. 42. IA Ct of HR, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 156; and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 220. 358 IA Ct of HR, Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 99; and Case of Vera Vera et al v. Ecuador. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 50. 359 UN, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1995, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, Rule 24. 360 UN, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/173, of December 9, 1988, Principle 24.