gain access to the benefits established in the law to enforce the sentence 51 but established as a requirement that the alleged victim be taken to a prison establishment. The petitioner considers that this condition is improper, since from the outset Raúl José Díaz Peña was held at the DISIP and should be able to accede to the benefits from that establishment. 25. The petitioner argues that the alleged victim waived the right to appeal his conviction. She argues that the resolution of the appeal could have taken another one to two years, since a large percentage of the judges heard the matter at trial, and thus would recuse themselves from hearing the appeal or would be challenged. She argues that bringing or not bringing an appeal would not change Mr. Díaz Peña’s status as a political prisoner, and that in any event his situation could worsen. She argues that as more than four years have elapsed since Mr. Díaz Peña’s arrest, he would rather accede to any benefit or alternative measure to serve the sentence and not pursue a remedy which by all indications would be illusory. 52 26. The petitioner notes that the enforcement of the conviction has been held up by the motion for appeal filed by Felipe Rodríguez, since the Eighth Court (Enforcement) referred the entirety of the record to the Court of Appeals. She alleges that Raúl José Díaz Peña appeared with his defense counsel before Chamber One of the Court of Appeals and asked that a certified copy of the record be forwarded to the Eighth Court, so that it might proceed to enforce it, which was found improper on October 21, 2008, as the judgment is not final, since an appeal had been filed. 53 The petitioner argues that while the judgment is not firm with respect to Felipe Rodríguez, it is with respect to Raúl José Díaz Peña, since he has waived any appeal. 27. Therefore, the petitioner argues that the State is responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention insofar as the testimony of the persons who incriminated the alleged victim was obtained under torture; and insofar as the prosecutors and judges in charge of the process took several measures that entailed delay, casting doubt on their impartiality. The petitioner argues that the case was before at least 50 judges in four years, since they were removed or recused themselves from hearing the case because of its political connotations. In addition, the petitioner alleges that the State is responsible for violating the right to assembly, protected at Article 15 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña, since his merely being present at Plaza Altamira and sympathizing with the dissident activists was criminalized as conspiracy (agavillamiento) for there is no evidence that the alleged victim had gone to Plaza Altamira to assemble for illegal purposes. She also argues that the State is responsible for violating the right to equal protection, protected at Article 24 of the American Convention insofar as the investigation into and trial of Raúl José Díaz Peña included numerous irregularities and procedural flaws. 28. The petitioner also alleged that the State is responsible for the detention of Mr. Díaz Peña at the DISIP in El Helicoide in inhumane conditions. She notes that his cell has no natural ventilation or inlets for air, the lighting is with artificial white light, the place is quite hot and humid, as a result of which fans are kept on 24 hours a day. She alleges that Mr. Díaz Peña is not allowed to go outside at all, or to receive any natural light, and that in the wake of his detention he has begun to experience health problems such as loss of weight, loss of pigmentation, pains in his bones, respiratory infections, continuous colds, acute meningitis, continuous hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and grave middle ear infection, which has caused him to lose almost all of his hearing in the left ear. He indicated that these health problems have been verified by the forensic physician of the DISIP, who ordered medication and an in-depth study at a health center that has adequate medical equipment. The petitioner also argues that on June 24, 2004, Raúl José Díaz Peña was confined for 24 hours in a punishment cell two- 51 The petitioner notes that the judge determined that at the moment of calculating, he could request the benefits of working outside the prison and assignment to an open establishment established at Articles 65 and 66 of the Law on the Prison Regime, Gaceta Oficial No. 36,975 of June 19, 2000. 52 Petitioner’s brief received at the IACHR June 4, 2008. 53 The petitioner cites the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit for the Caracas Area, Resolution of October 21, 2008. Attached to the petitioner’s brief received at the IACHR December 3, 2008. 9