23 hernia and that he did not receive any medical treatment either because there is only one doctor at the prison facility and he is for emergencies only.114 95. On July 18, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber ruled on a petition for amparo relief brought by Mr. Rojas against the director and officials of the CAI La Reforma prison facilities.115 In said petition, Mr. Rojas claimed that he submitted an allegedly confidential report to the prison authorities regarding acts of extortion committed by other persons deprived of liberty. He reported that said persons gained access to said report and, therefore, robbed and beat him and actually attempted to kill him. In light of the foregoing statement made by the alleged victim, the Constitutional Chamber issued an order, effective immediately, for Mr. Rojas Madrigal to be located in a place where his life and safety were not in jeopardy and requested a report on the alleged acts from prison officials of CAI La Reforma.116 96. On July 26, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition filed by Mr. Rojas.117 The Constitutional Chamber held that based on the reports given under oath by the prison officials “no infringement of his rights can be ascertained” inasmuch as measures of protection were adopted and that the persons who robbed and extorted him were transferred away.118 97. On November 26, 2007, Mr. Rojas filed with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney a criminal complaint against the four officials of the CAI La Reforma prison for the crime of torture stemming from the acts described above pertaining to the robbery and assault inflicted on him by other inmates during the second half of 2006.119 98. On December 18, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber ruled on a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Mr. Rojas on December 12, of that year.120 Mr. Rojas contended that since the time he entered cellblock C of CAI La Reforma prison facilities in 2003, he had not received any medical care for his condition of diabetes and other illnesses. He reported that he was only taken to a hospital one time because he had fainted. He also claimed that beginning in August 2006, when he was transferred to cellblock B, he had to “compete for a place because only the first two patients are treated each week.” He also made reference to the allegations pertaining to the beating he received from other inmates after they heard that he was an “informant.” He claimed that the guards refused to provide 114 Annex 53. Submission of the grievance by Mr. Rojas Madrigal, dated June 26, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 5, 2006. 115 Annex 54. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated July 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 116 Annex 54. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated July 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 15, 2008. 15, 2008. 117 Annex 55. Decision No. 2006-010962 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated July 26, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 15, 2008. 118 Annex 55. Decision No. 2006-010962 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated July 26, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 15, 2008. 119 Annex 56. Criminal complaint filed by Mr. Rojas Madrigal, dated November 26, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 4, 2008. 120 Annex 57. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, dated December 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 7, 2007.