62 353 right to humane treatment and endangers the routine performance of essential functions at prison facilities.354 The IACHR notes that there are serious conditions of overcrowding and overpopulation at the CAI La Reforma prison, and this situation was denounced by Rafael Rojas to the Constitutional Chamber in 2010. On this score, said court denied his petition for constitutional relief on amparo on the grounds that “the main argument of the claimant did not address overcrowding but rather the lack of food.” Furthermore, Mr. Rojas filed another complaint with the Sentence Execution Court about the situation of overcrowding at the facility in 2013. The Commission does not have a copy of the decision on that remedy. In response, the State even recognized that there has been an increase in the number of persons deprived of liberty at prison facilities and noted that more resources have been allocated in the 2013 draft budget for the construction of prison infrastructure. 256. Secondly, the Court has held that every person deprived of liberty must have access to drinking water and water for their personal hygiene. Therefore, the absence of minimum conditions to guarantee the supply of drinking water within a prison constitutes a serious failure by the State in its duty to guarantee the rights of those held in its custody.355 In the instant case, the State claimed that “it is unaware (…) that any health problems have been reported from the ingestion of water” and also contended that the water is used by the prison staff as well. 257. Nonetheless, the IACHR notes that on September 14, 2012, the Constitutional Court granted the petition for constitutional relief on amparo filed by Mr. Rojas Madrigal regarding the lack of potable drinking water and water for personal hygiene. The Constitutional Chamber took into consideration the reports and studies of the National Water Laboratory and the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, which found that the water supplied at the CAI La Reforma prison is not potable and poses a high risk to the health of users. It was also identified that water service is suspended for several hours per day. The Commission notes that the State did not submit information regarding the measures adopted by it to comply with the order of the Constitutional Chamber in its ruling, even though it dealt with a violation that affected persons deprived of their liberty at the CAI La Reforma facilities for a protracted period of time. 258. Thirdly, the Court directed that the food provided in prison facilities must be of good quality and sufficient nutritional value.356 The Commission takes note of the information submitted by Mr. Damas Vega, who indicated that food was served on the ground, a few meters away from the toilet facilities, which incited the persons deprived of liberty to fight for the food. Likewise, the Commission notes that the Constitutional Chamber concluded in its decision of May 29, 2008 that the way the food was served constituted an affront to the dignity of the persons deprived of liberty at CAI La Reforma 353 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. 150; and Case of Fleury et al v. Haiti. Judgment of Merits and Reparations November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 85. 354 IA Ct 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. 20; and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 204. 355 IA Ct of HR, Case of Pacheco Teruel et al v. Honduras. Judgment of Merits, Reparation and Costs. April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 67.c); and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 216. 356 IA Ct of HR, Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 209; Case of Pacheco Teruel et al v. Honduras. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 67.d).