November 2, 2006, he requested that the nutrition department of CAI La Reforma respond to the complaint he had filed. 132 104. In this regard, the Head of Nutrition of the CAI La Reforma sent a report to the Sentence Execution Court, denying that the food received by the inmates was insufficient or of poor quality and attaching the menu provided at the prison. 133 He added that each prisoner was responsible for returning his clean dishes. He also stated that the distribution of food was supervised and that the amount provided was “adequate,” since food containing carbohydrates, proteins and fats was prepared daily and served in both meals. 134 On March 15, 2007, the Sentence Execution Court dismissed this complaint, based on the reports provided by the prison’s nutrition department, and stated that “there is no evidence of negligence or arbitrariness in the actions of the prison system officials that would infringe any rights of the prisoner.” 135 In 2007, the Ombudsman’s Office carried out a project in cooperation with the School of Nutrition of the University of Costa Rica, which was presented to the Ministry of Justice in October 2007 and contained a series of recommendations to guarantee the right to food of those deprived of liberty. 136 105. On January 18, 2010, Mr. Rojas filed another writ of amparo before the Constitutional Chamber alleging an insufficient amount of food provided during breakfast in terms of size and quantity in proportion to the number of inmates in the prison, as well as the reduction of food during visiting days. In the same complaint, Mr. Rojas also alleged overcrowding in the cellblocks of Area B of the CAI La Reforma at the time of the motion. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber declared the appeal inadmissible, indicating that: “From the reports submitted by representatives of the respondent authorities […] and the evidence provided for the resolution of this matter, there is no proof of degrading treatment through lack of food. […] Regarding the alleged prohibition for visitors to bring food: [they stated] that this is not true, but that the possibility is open for the prisoners to receive food on a daily basis from third parties who come [to the prison]… […]. Regarding the lack of food on visiting days: [they reported] that the kitchen provides the same amount of food on those days as during the rest of the week, the only difference being that the necessary amount is distributed, according to the demand of the population; but there is always a reserve of prepared food in the kitchen and if required, it is distributed. On other matters, […] there is no evidence of any irregularity [in the prices of the “pulperías” (grocery stores), since the prices in the “pulperías” are suggested by the supplier, and the Administration supervises them and carries out regular inventories; and the quantity of fruit served to the prison population at lunch or dinner is approximately four [fruits] per week, as well as the natural juices made from the pulp of different fruits, and that portions are assigned to the population 3 to 5 times per week, with amounts that exceed the number of inmates housed there. 137 106. In the aforementioned ruling, the Chamber also pointed out that the issue of overcrowding was previously resolved by “decision No. 10-017176, issued at 10:20 a.m. on October 15, 2010 and No. 10-14807 issued at 08:40 a.am on September 3, 2010.” 138 Finally, the Court notes that in addition to public policies aimed at reducing overcrowding in Costa 132 Cf. Request for response to the complaint to the nutrition department of CAI La Reforma, of November 2, 2006 (evidence file, folio 20820). 133 They reportedly received 6 meals with meat products, 2 meals with sausages, 2 meals with tuna, 2 meals with pasta, 2 meals with eggs and “2 meals that do not contain any animal products.” 134 Cf. Response of the Head of the Nutrition Department of CAI La Reforma, official letter N 305-06, November 3, 2006 (evidence file, folio 20825). 135 Cf. Decision No. 899-07 of the Sentence Execution Court, of March 15, 2007(evidence file, folio 20881). 136 Cf. Official letter No. 02645-2008-DHR of the Ombudsman’s Office of March 17, 2008 (evidence file, folios 20903-20905). 137 Cf. Decision No. 2011001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1814-1815). 138 Decision No. 2011001692 of the Constitutional Chamber, of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1816) 40