noted that at least 4000 persons diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are living in Guatemala and that the State only provides medicines to 27 persons.27 75. They also argued in this suit that a State policy, which conforms to the financial reality of the State, should strive to use quality generic antiretroviral drugs, which are substantially less costly than those used by the State.28 They also contended that at the time of the filing of the amparo claim, they had not received any response to their letter sent on May 27, 2002 addressed to the President of the Republic.29 They argued that, consequently, the President “passed over and ignored [their] petition and did not issue any type of instruction, resolution or decision to reflect his interest in fulfilling the constitutional mandate.”30 76. The claimants also alleged that the State was violating their right to life and health.31 They requested that the President be ordered to issue “the transfer of the necessary budget funding for the purchase, systematic and daily distribution of the antiretroviral treatments needed to preserve [their] lives, as well as adequate and permanent monitoring of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala.” 32 They also said that an order should be issued for the purchase of quality generic antiretroviral drugs for mass treatment and not selective treatment as has been provided to the 27 persons receiving treatment from the State.33 77. On August 1, 2002, then President of the Republic Alfonso Portillo, submitted a written brief of appearance to the Constitutional Court.34 He contended that in the instant case, “there is no evidence of any link between the claimants and the charged offense (…) where it would seem that that a popular cause is being invoked, which in no way can be subject matter for examination in an amparo claim.”35 78. On August 2, 2002, the Office of the Public Prosecutor filed a written submission with the Constitutional Court in which it claimed that the President of the Republic “has not fulfilled the obligation to resolve, within the statutory time period, the matter of the request filed by the claimants in their letter of May 27, 2002.”36 It contended that the President “has infringed the right of petition, as established in Article 28 of the Political Constitution of the Republic, which makes it feasible to grant this constitutional action.”37 26 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 27 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 28 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 29 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 30 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 31 New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 32 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 33 Annex 4. New Amparo suit brought before the Constitutional Court dated July 26, 2002. communication of August 26, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ 34 Annex 5. Written submission of Alfonso Portillo, dated August 1, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 35 Annex 5. Written submission of Alfonso Portillo, dated August 1, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 2003. 36 Annex 6. Written submission of the Office of the Public Prosecutor dated August 2, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 37 Annex 6. Written submission of the Office of the Public Prosecutor dated August 2, 2002. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 26, 2003. 20