each prisoner are appropriate.” The judicial authority stated that there is no “inadequate management in the preparation of food for the prison population.” 112 93. The Commission considered that the alleged victims who were detained at the CAl La Reforma lived in conditions incompatible with their human dignity, due to overcrowding, the lack of drinking water, the poor quality of the food and the system of food distribution. In addition, the Commission noted that the CAl La Reforma had infrastructure deficiencies in the walls, ceilings, electrical installations and sanitary facilities. 94. The Commission also noted that between 2006 and 2013, Mr. Rafael Rojas filed various amparo and habeas corpus petitions and complaints related to lack of access to health services. The Commission pointed out that these appeals were dismissed based exclusively on reports of the prison authorities of La Reforma, which stated that Mr. Rojas had received medical attention when he required it. It also found that the State did not present information on the measures taken to comply with the Constitutional Chamber’s order, and considered that the fact that a person deprived of their liberty had to appeal twice to a judicial authority to obtain the required medical treatment evidences problems in the timely and adequate access to treatment in CAl La Reforma. However, regarding the alleged violation of Mr. Damas Vega’s right of access to health, it held that it did not have sufficient elements to rule on this matter. 95. The SIPDH representatives alleged that the prison conditions denounced in this case “not only remain unresolved, but have worsened.” 113 96. The Inter-American Defenders argued that Rafael Rojas and other alleged victims have suffered “the extremely serious problem of overcrowding that exists in the national prison system.” They also pointed out the State’s failure to observe control of conventionality with respect to the issue of prison overcrowding, given that “innumerable actions have been filed by prisoners,” the Public Defense Office, the Ombudsman’s Office, foundations and NGOs, as well as rulings of the Constitutional Chamber, opinions of the sentence execution judges and repeated complaints by public officials within the prison system, which have declared overcrowding and technical closure of prison units, since “more than ten thousand people are held in a serious situation of vulnerability.” 114 E.2. Considerations of the Court 97. With respect to the arguments of the parties, the Court recalls that the inter-American human rights system consists of a national level, through which each State must guarantee the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and investigate and, if necessary, try and punish the violations committed; and that if a specific case is not resolved at the domestic or national level, the Convention provides for an international level in which the main organs are the Commission and the Court. This Court has also indicated that when a question has been resolved at the domestic level, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention, it is not necessary to bring the matter before the Inter-American Court for approval or confirmation. This is based on the principle of complementarity or subsidiarity, which permeates the interAmerican human rights system, “reinforcing or complementing the protection offered by the Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1523). Cf. Pleadings and motions brief of the common interveners SIPDH (merits file, folios 528). 114 Cf. Pleadings and motions brief of the common interveners Inter-American Public Defenders (merits file, folios 817 to 822). 112 113 37