26 persons deprived of liberty.”137 It noted that the prison officials themselves admitted that it is impossible to supervise the serving of food to make it fair.138 Accordingly, the Constitutional Chamber ordered the CAI La Reforma prison to issue the necessary orders so that the delivery and serving of meals “is conducted in a fair, timely and properly supervised fashion.”139 105. The Office of the Ombudsman of the Inhabitants issued a report in 2010 announcing its position on CAI La Reforma.140 In the report, it mentions infrastructure deficiencies, specifically in the electric fixtures, sanitation services, walls and roofs.141 106. On February 11, 2011, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition for amparo relief filed by Mr. Rojas on January 18, 2010.142 The alleged victim, therein, complained that meals were insufficient and there was overcrowding at CAI La Reforma prison.143 The Constitutional Chamber noted that based on the information provided by the Director of the CAI, “degrading treatment from lack of nourishment cannot be proven.”144 It also said that “even though this Chamber has ascertained on other occasions that critical overcrowding (…) constitutes degrading treatment, in this case we did not engage in assessing that aspect because the main argument of the claimant did not address overcrowding but rather the lack of food.”145 107. On June 25, 2012, Mr. Rojas brought an amparo proceeding before the Constitutional Chamber claiming that he suffered from an hernia as a result of work at the prison facility and that he had not been operated on even though it had been prescribed by the doctor.146 On June 28, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber requested the facilities’ authorities “to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure the medical care [for him] that he requires in order to adequately treat his ailment.”147 137 Annex 63. Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 29, 2008. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 18, 2009. 138 Annex 63. Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 29, 2008. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 18, 2009. 139 Annex 63. Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 29, 2008. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 18, 2009. 140 Annex 64. Press clipping “Office of the Ombudsman claims crisis in prison” published in the daily newspaper Diario Extra, dated April 20, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 7, 2011. 141 Annex 64. Press clipping “Office of the Ombudsman claims crisis in prison” published in the daily newspaper Diario Extra, dated April 20, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 7, 2011. 142 Annex 65. Decision No. 2011-001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated February 11, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2011. 143 Annex 65. Decision No. 2011-001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated February 11, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2011. 144 Annex 65. Decision No. 2011-001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated February 11, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2011. 145 Annex 65. Decision No. 2011-001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated February 11, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2011. 146 Annex 66. Submission of Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 25, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 147 Annex 67. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 28, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012.