wrongful act, have ceased the violation, and have remedied the consequences of the measure or situation that gave rise to it. 125 100. In relation to the foregoing, in situations such as those of the instant case, where the State alleged as a preliminary objection that, by virtue of the principle of complementarity, this Court should refrain from hearing the case on the grounds that it is inadmissible, the Court considers that, for a preliminary objection of this nature to be admitted, it is insufficient for the State to allege the existence of a judicial or administrative response to the remedies attempted by the alleged victims; in addition, it must be determined whether the State’s response was adequate to remedy the consequences of the alleged violation. 126 In this sense, the Court recalls that preliminary objections provide a defense for the State challenging the admissibility of a case, so that the latter must prove that the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction were capable of producing the result for which they were conceived. 101. In this regard, first, the Court has confirmed that the alleged victims filed several appeals before the judicial and administrative authorities to denounce the alleged violation of their personal integrity due to the prison conditions. The Court found that both Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Damas Vega Atencio filed appeals in relation to: i) poor food and overcrowding at the CAI La Reforma, ii) access to medical care and iii) access to drinking water. Secondly, taking into account the jurisprudence of this Court and the complementary nature of the interAmerican system, the Court will proceed to determine whether such remedies were adequate, and if so, whether the alleged violations were remedied. E.2.1 Regarding poor food and overcrowding at CAI La Reforma 102. The Court notes that, with respect to the alleged poor food and overcrowding at the CAI in La Reforma, Mr. Rojas Madrigal filed a writ of amparo on May 5, 2008, together with several other inmates, denouncing the poor supply of food, a situation that meant there was not enough food for all the inmates, who alleged that the food, even when rationed, was insufficient. 127 The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling on May 29, 2008, 128 declaring the petition admissible and, based on an official letter from the prison’s Administrative Directorate, found that the distribution of food was carried out by inmates. Therefore, by means of decision No. 2008-009067 it ordered the prison management of CAI La Reforma: “Under penalty of disobedience, to immediately issue the necessary orders within the scope of its powers and jurisdiction to ensure that the delivery and distribution of food at [CAI] La Reforma is carried out in an equitable, timely and properly supervised manner to those deprived of liberty. The respondent authority shall submit a report 129 to this Court within eight days from the notification of this ruling on its effective compliance with the measures ordered. The State is ordered to pay costs, damages and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this decision, which shall be settled in the execution of the administrative contentious proceeding.” 130 103. For his part, Damas Vega filed a complaint with the Sentence Execution Court of Alajuela on October 2, 2006, 131 regarding the small amount of food received during breakfast, as well as the deficient quality and poor preparation of the food served during lunch. On Case Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, 96. Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 137, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 171. 127 Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber of May 29, 2008(evidence file, folio 1800). 128 Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber of May 29, 2008(evidence file, folio 1800). 129 This report is not included in the case file. 130 Cf. Decision No. 2008-009067 of the Constitutional Chamber, of May 29, 2008(evidence file, folio 1805). 131 Cf. Complaint submitted to the Sentence Execution Court, of October 2, 2006 (evidence file, folio 20816). 125 126 39