64 262. The Court has held that a lack of medical care for persons deprived of their liberty does not satisfy the minimum material requirements of dignified treatment appropriate to their status as a human being, as established in Article 5 of the American Convention.361 In this respect, lack of adequate medical assistance for a person who is deprived of liberty and is in the custody of the State could be considered per se a violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention depending on the specific circumstances of the particular individual, such as his state of health, the type of disease or ailment, the time spent without medical attention and its cumulative physical and mental effects362 and, in some instances, the sex and age of the person, inter alia.363 263. In the instant case, the IACHR notes that, from 2006 to 2013, Mr. Rojas Madrigal has been filing petitions for relief on amparo, habeas corpus and grievances regarding the lack of access to health care services, mainly as a result of his condition as a diabetic, as well as for other issues such as dizziness, headaches, hernias, fevers, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, among others. 264. The Commission notes that the remedies were dismissed based exclusively on reports from the prison officials themselves of CAI La Reforma, who claim that Mr. Rojas did indeed receive medical care when he needed it. Notwithstanding, the IACHR has taken note that on July 17, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber granted a petition for relief on amparo on the grounds that it believed that there was a violation of Mr. Rojas’ right to health and ordered him to be transferred to a hospital to be treated for a hernia he presented. Likewise, on January 18, 2013, said court also granted another petition for constitutional relief on amparo, ordering the CAI La Reforma prison authorities to take the necessary actions to ensure that Mr. Rojas receives the medical care he needs. The Commission notes that the State did not submit information pertaining to the measure adopted by it to comply with the order of the Constitutional Chamber in its decision. 265. The Commission finds that the fact that a person deprived of liberty must resort on two opportunities to the judicial authorities to obtain the medical treatment he needs, exposes issues with timely and adequate access to treatment at CAI La Reforma. 266. In this respect, the Commission concludes that the State breached its obligation to provide access to health services to Rafael Rojas Madrigal, in violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. 267. The Commission also notes that Mr. Damas Vega alleged that even though he had diabetes, he did not have access to health care services and he was prevented from having an operation Likewise, he noted that the Constitutional Chamber denied a petition for amparo pertaining to this situation even though no medical case file was made available to him. In response, the State claimed that Mr. Vega was provided the medical care he needed as a result of his condition. The IACHR does not 361 IA Court of HR, Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 131; 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. 44. 362 IA Court of HR, Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 103; 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. 44. 363 IA Ct of HR, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Judgment of Merits. November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 74; 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. 44.