89. Finally, regarding the alleged denial of the right to “admit” and “access” evidence for the defense, in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives alleged that Mr. Martínez Meléndez was denied the right to “admit evidence” because he was “prevented from submitting […] essential evidence to prove that the funds of the [G]overnment programs were not taken by him, but were received by the beneficiaries.” Such evidence consisted of the testimonial statements of the beneficiaries of the Social Compensation Program. Regarding the alleged denial of the right of access to evidence, they asserted, on the one hand, that the State “concealed [a] set of important documentary evidence for the defense, thereby preventing the establishment of the truth,” 102 and, on the other hand, that Mr. Martínez was denied the opportunity to be present at all the hearings for the examination of the evidence held during the first criminal proceeding against him. In relation to these facts, the representatives alleged the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention. They further alleged that they expressed their disagreement with the actions of the domestic courts by filing an appeal in cassation, which was rejected by the Third Chamber of Criminal Cassation, which “refused to analyze” the documentation and arguments submitted, in violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers it pertinent to analyze these arguments, insofar as they seek to assess the compatibility of the acts of the domestic courts with the American Convention, as well as the effectiveness of the remedy of cassation, in order to determine whether in its substantiation a comprehensive evaluation of the actions of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José was carried out. Consequently, the State’s objection on this point is dismissed. 90. In conclusion, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection with respect to the arguments of the Commission and Groups 2, 3, and 6, and partially admits the arguments in respect of Group 4, in accordance with the terms of paragraph 88 of this judgment. E. Objection regarding the violation of the principle of complementarity in relation to the prison conditions E.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 91. The State argued that this Court should refrain from hearing claims related to the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity (humane treatment) of Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Damas Vega Atencio, owing to various internal decisions aimed at addressing the problems raised; therefore the intervention of this Court would be unnecessary in view of the principle of subsidiarity or complementarity, taking into account that it could only analyze the matter in the event that the State had failed to provide an adequate response at the national level. Thus, with respect to Rafael Rojas Madrigal, it maintained that he had used the remedy of amparo as a suitable means to demand adequate conditions at the CAI La Reforma, access to health services and other aspects related to the right to personal integrity, obtaining favorable rulings that would suggest an internal response to his claims. 103In particular, the State issued a statement on the alleged harm to Mr. Rojas Madrigal, including his access to 102 The evidence referred to consisted of a series of checks whose originals were allegedly not produced because the State “claimed that they had been lost, [and] that it could not produce or deliver them, and [subsequently] it provided a set of photocopies whose origin could not be determined either, and that were used to convict.” 103 Answering brief of the State (merits file, folios 1121 to 1123). 35