and-half meters by three meters, without light, windows, or bathroom, called the “little tiger” ( “el tigrito”) at the DISIP. 54 29. The petitioner argues that while there has been an improvement in the conditions of detention of Raúl José Díaz Peña, since the Commission decreed precautionary measures on his behalf, his health has continued to deteriorate. He argues that in addition to the medical problems that have been reported from the outset of the detention, the alleged victim is in need of surgery to extract a perianal abscess that causes him pain, fever, constipation, and rectal bleeding, and for which he requires hospitalization and post-operative recovery period in salubrious conditions. She further notes that the alleged victim has lost his hearing, and that the specialist told him that until he undergoes surgery he will not have access to the therapy he needs to improve his condition. 30. Accordingly, the petitioner argues that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life protected at Article 4 of the American Convention by reason of the grave health situation of the alleged victim and the State’s negligence in failing to provide adequate medical services, posing a risk to the life of Raúl José Díaz Peña. In addition, the petitioner argues that the State is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment protected at Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña based on the conditions of his detention at the DISIP and the health problems that he has suffered as a result. The petitioner argues that his health is deteriorating and that the State has ignored the precautionary measures issued by the Commission and the repeated requests for a transfer so as to perform the medical check-ups and surgery that he needs. 31. In summary, the petitioner argues that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment, personal liberty, fair trial, privacy, the right of assembly, the right to equal protection, and the right to judicial protection protected at Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 24, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the duty to ensure the rights, provided for at Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña. 32. With respect to the State’s allegation regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see infra B), the petitioner indicates that the conviction was handed down on April 29, 2008, and Raúl José Díaz Peña expressly waived the appeal, as he considered it an illusory remedy, wanted to be able to quickly accede to the benefits of serving the sentence, which in practice has not occurred. In addition, she alleges that as the alleged victim has been detained for more than two years, an application was filed to review the deprivation of liberty, in keeping with Article 244 of the COPP, which was denied. She argues that this decision was appealed, yet the appeal was found inadmissible, in response to which a motion for reconsideration was filed, which was also denied. She notes that an amparo action was brought in response to those decisions, which was declared inadmissible in the first instance, and subsequently on appeal on May 11, 2007. She adds that the resolution of May 11, 2007, which declared theamparo inadmissible on appeal, exhausted domestic remedies. B. The State’s position 33. In response to the petitioner’s claim, the State alleged, with respect to the conditions of detention, that Raúl José Díaz Peña is being held at the Coordination Unit for Investigations in the Sub-Process for Control of Apprehended Persons (Coordinación de Investigaciones en el Sub-Proceso de Control de Aprehendido), cell No. 6, corridor B. It alleges that the cell in which he is held is 2.65 meters long, 2.36 meters wide, and 2.87 meters high, with good light and a bathroom at the end of the hallway. It adds that the cells have a ventilation system through stand-up fans and air extractors in the hallways. It noted that in terms of recreation, there is an area set aside as a gym with exercise machines that can be used during free time from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. 34. The State notes that the DISIP allows daily activities in the open air, and that Mr. Díaz Peña goes out for sun once a week, according to the stipulated schedule. It indicated that the 54 The petitioner alleges that the motive for the confinement was having sent a letter to a radio station, which was read live by a journalist. 10