25. The petitioner alleges a number of violations of due process in the criminal cases brought against him.Specifically with respect to judgment No. 1536-02, he states that the public defender did not file an appeal, and that he had to enter it himself with the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, without technical assistance, and that the appeal was denied. He also alleges that the public defender did not appear at the hearing during the procedural phase of the case24. With regard to judgment No. 172-2000, he alleges that by filing petitions with the court, he was able to have the prison term reduced from four years to one; however, the petitions were decided late, given that the first conviction was in 2000, and its modification took place in 2010, once he had served the sentence. Regarding judgment No. 614-09, he alleges that he did not have access to the written text, and that that had made it impossible for him to exercise his defense25. He states that he filed an appeal against that judgment, and that that appeal was limited by his not having the judgment in written form 26. 26. He also contends that his right to health was violated, because he was not provided with medical care, despite having requested it; that the detention center was unhygienic and without sanitary facilities, is overcrowded and there is a shortage of food. He also alleges that the detainees are victims of psychological torture by the corrections personnel, and that there is a lack of police protection27.He alleges a progressive worsening of security in the prison, and states that there are cases of inmates having been wounded with sharp instruments and that many have died in prison28; but that it is difficult to file complaints about these acts with no State protection. 27. With regard to the requirement in the Convention that domestic remedies be exhausted, he claims that domestic remedies have been exhausted. He states that he presented an appeal against judgment No. 1536-02, along with 10 requests for review 29; two appeals from judgment No. 172-10, and 10 review procedures; and one appeal against judgment No. 61409, which was in process at the time of writing of the present report 30. 28. As to the conditions of detention and medical care, he contends that he filed three criminal complaints to the Office of the Public Prosecutor [Ministerio Público] of Alajuela against prison employees, on grounds of danger to his personal safety, but that they had been denied. He also states that he filed petitions for writs of amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court; and that he presented a complaint to the National Institute of Criminology, which gave rise, he said, to an investigation by the Ministry of Justice. He also mentions a number of proceedings that he had filed regarding his health situation because of alleged lack of medical care. Petition 1174-04: Damas Vega Atencio 24 He also alleges that the public defenders deal with matters related to the execution of the sentence, and do not file petitions for review. 25 On this matter, he states that the penitentiary prohibited the use of a CD copier or reader, and that as a result, they cannot read the judgments. He contends that he filed a petition for a writ of amparo on account of this situation, but that it had been denied by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. 26 He further claims that his freedom of expression was violated because the prison authorities prevented him from being interviewed by a television channel, and he alleges that all his legal materials were taken from him. 27 The petitioner also alleges that he had been detained incommunicado for more than 70 hours without a court order; and that he was beaten when he refused a body search. That on that account, he had filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was admitted in part. He states that no-one was punished. 28 The petitioner makes reference to some specific situations. 29 He indicates that following adoption of Law 8.503, he lodged three requests for review, two of which were joined.He alleges that some of the judges who heard the petitions had previously heard the matter. As to the guarantee in Article 8 (2) (h) of the Convention, the petitioner alleges that when he realized that it was impossible to find relief through filing requests for review, he presented a request for a pardon, a petition for habeas corpus, a denunciation to the Office of the Ombudsman [Defensoría de los Habitantes], a case of civil and disciplinary liability to the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, a complaint with the Interdisciplinary Office of the Public Defender, and a complaint to the Office of the Judicial Inspector of the Court, inter alia, and stated that those cases had been denied. 30 6