Constitutional Chamber requested the Director of CAI La Reforma to transfer Mr. Rojas “to a place where his life and personal integrity are not at risk” and “to take the measures necessary to ensure that Rafael Antonio Rojas receives the medical attention he requires to adequately treat his condition, either at the institutional care center (CAI La Reforma), or at an appropriate hospital facility […].” 146 It also ordered the prison administration to submit a report within 48 hours. 147 110. On December 21, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber received the requested report, which stated that Mr. Rojas had refused to be taken to the hospital area and to undergo the laboratory tests offered to him. Similarly, it referred to his safety, pointing out that “it is important to note the offer made to transfer him to some other space if he considers himself to be at risk, but he has indicated that he is satisfied with his current location in Area B.” 148 111. Based on said report, on January 9, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber declared Mr. Rojas’ habeas corpus motion inadmissible, due to the lack of evidence indicating the alleged violation of his right to physical integrity. 149 As for the violation of the inmate’s right to health, it pointed out that the result of the analysis carried out on Mr. Rojas “is not consistent with an untreated diabetic patient.” It added that at the prison “outpatient care is scheduled every day and an average of 16 to 20 patients are seen daily. In addition the prison clinic has an emergency service to which inmates who request medical attention can go […] whenever they need it.” 150This contradicted Mr. Rojas Madrigal’s statement. 151 112. Subsequently, on June 25, 2012, Rafael Rojas filed a writ of amparo alleging that he was suffering from an umbilical hernia and requesting treatment, assessment and compensation for his condition. 152 On June 28, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber ordered the prison authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that Rafael Rojas received the medical care he required until the Chamber issued its decision. 153 On July 17, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber declared “a violation of the appellant’s right to health” attributable to the prison authorities of La Reforma, and ordered that Mr. Rojas be taken to his scheduled medical appointment. 154 On December 25, 2012, Rafael Rojas filed another writ of amparo before the Constitutional Chamber alleging that he was suffering from a lack of medical care at the CAI La Reforma, and on December 27, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber ordered the prison Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, of December 18, 2006. Annex to the communication of the petitioner of March 7, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1765). 147 Cf. On December 21, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber received the report requested, which stated that Mr. Rojas had refused to be transferred to the hospital area and to have the tests offered to him. The report also referred to the inmate’s safety, pointing out that “it is important to emphasize the offer made to relocate him in some other space if he considered himself to be at risk, but he has indicated that he is fine with his current placement in Cell Block B”. Cf. Official letter of the Institutional Care Center of La Reforma, of December 21, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1768-1770). 148 Cf. Official letter of the Institutional Care Center of La Reforma, of December 21, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1768-1770). 149 Cf. Decision No. 2007·000008 of the Constitutional Chamber, of January 9, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1788). 150 Cf. Decision No. 2007000008 of the Constitutional Chamber, of January 9, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1784). 151 Cf. Decision No. 2007·000008 of the Constitutional Chamber, of January 9, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1783-1784). 152 Cf. Brief of Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal addressed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of June 25, 2012 (evidence file, folios 1818-1822). 153 Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of June 28, 2012 (evidence file, folio 1826). 154 Cf. Decision No. 2012009242 of the Constitutional Chamber, of July 17, 2012 (evidence file, folios 18371838). 146 42