health care, 104 access to water services 105 and alleged mistreatment, 106 indicating that in all these matters he received an adequate response from the State, and even obtained rulings favorable to his interests. 92. Regarding Damas Vega Atencio, 107 with respect to the alleged violation of his right to health, the State indicated that the alleged victim filed a writ of amparo against the Prison Director, the Head of the Training and Work Division of Area B and the Director of the Clinic, all of them of the CAI La Reforma, arguing that “despite [his] ailments and his depression, [he] has not received adequate medical attention.” 108 However, the State pointed out that “the Constitutional Chamber did not find any violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights, inasmuch as, prior to the decision on the merits, it was reported that this inmate had received regular medical attention, and there is no record that the patient had mentioned health problems related to his family circumstances, nor did he inform his physicians that he was suffering from depression that caused a deterioration in his health.” 109 It also held that “the Sentence Execution Court declared without merit the complaint filed by Mr. Vega Atencio, alleging a lack of medical assistance” 110(emphasis in the original). The State indicated that Damas Vega Atencio “filed various motions and appeals related to: i) the denial of a request for an operation for his diabetes ii) lack of access to health care and lack of ambulances and iii) the carrying out of a search during which [officers] allegedly touched his genital area and his belongings were destroyed or stolen. However, these appeals were rejected by the Court of Cassation on November 6 and 9, 2007 and on October 30, 2008, due to lack of evidence.” 111 Regarding the complaint about food, on October 2, 2006, Damas Vega Atencio filed a complaint with the judge overseeing execution of the sentence, concerning the poor food provided at the CAI La Reforma; on March 15, 2007, the Sentence Execution Court declared the complaint inadmissible, considering that “the quantities and types of food provided to For example, the State indicated that “on July 17, 2012 the Constitutional Chamber declared admissible the writ of amparo No 12-008582-0007-CO and considered that the basic right to health of Rojas Madrigal was violated, a situation attributable to the authorities of CAI La Reforma. […] Consequently, it ordered the Director of CAI La Reforma to take the necessary steps to enable Mr. Rojas Madrigal to attend medical appointments at the Surgery Department of the Hospital San Rafael de Alajuela” (emphasis of the original). Cf., Answering brief of the State (merits file, folios 1506 to 1514). 105 The State emphasized that on August 5, 2012 the alleged victim Rojas Madrigal filed a motion for amparo before the Constitutional Chamber alleging poor conditions in relation to access to drinking water (Se consume non-potable water, usually the water is rationed every 3 hours and is only available for 10 minutes; sometimes, there is no water for several days). Then it mentioned that in Decision No. 2012-012846 of September 14, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber declared admissible motion for amparo filed by Rojas Madrigal and noted that “the investigating judge Rueda Leal indicated that based on the evidence provided, it has been proven that the water consumed at the prison is not potable, and granted the prison administration one month to resolve the problem. The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AYA) (Costa Rican Water Institute) was ordered to coordinate with the National Water Laboratory in order to carry out tests, within one month, at CAI La Reforma and submit a report to the Chamber on water potability” (emphasis of the original). In this regard, the State argued that this internal decision “shows that domestic law resolved the claims of the alleged victim in a timely manner [and that] the Prison Administration, for many years, has been taking measures to address the concerns about access to water. However, in addition, after the motion for amparo was admitted, as is clear from the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber, immediate measures were ordered to better guarantee access to drinking water.” Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1515). 106 The State indicated that “the alleged victim Rojas Madrigal claimed to have suffered mistreatment while incarcerated at CAI La Reforma; however […] the Constitutional Chamber itself was aware of the allegations and his claims were addressed and resolved. The same was done by the Sentence Execution Court or the General Directorate of Social Adaptation, so that, what the IACHR is doing by calling into question the results of the different processes in its final resolutions is no more than acting, once again, as a fourth instance. The claims and demands of Mr. Rojas Madrigal were definitively addressed and decided in the domestic jurisdiction.” Cf., Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1516). 107 Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1123). 108 Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1522). 109 Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1523). 110 “The judge observed that […] the inmate’s right to health has not been restricted, since he received timely treatment for his ailments.” Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1523). 111 Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1523). 104 36