administration to submit a report on this matter, 155 which was duly presented on January 2, 2013. 156 113. On January 18, 2013, the Constitutional Chamber established that “regardless of the number of times he has previously been provided with [medical services], as well as the fact that on some occasions he refused to attend medical appointments, the fact that it was only through the filing of this amparo that he was provided with the care he had requested since last December 15, constitutes a violation of his right to health.” Thus, it declared that the appeal was admissible with compensatory effects, since Rafael Rojas had already been treated on December 28. 157 114. It should be noted that on May 9, 2017, Rafael Rojas was transferred to the prison’s Center for Senior Citizens (Centro del Adulto Mayor), 158 where, as of August 2017, he considered that he was in good conditions, since “there is no overcrowding, there is good cleanliness and neatness […] he feels safe, he does not have problems with his peers, there is no aggression and the prison officers are very cooperative in stressful situations […] He eats three meals a day […and] says he has attended medical appointments on several occasions […].” 159 Likewise, Mr. Rojas “has some medical appointments [scheduled] at hospitals of the Costa Rican Social Security System (CCSS) in the medical specialties of general surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology” to treat various ailments. 160 E.2.4. Conclusion 115. In relation to the foregoing, the Court notes that the alleged victims had access to judicial and administrative remedies to address violations of their rights, which were allegedly a consequence of the prison conditions in which they were held. The Court also notes that both the judicial and the administrative authorities responded to their claims in a fair manner, and adopted sufficient measures to remedy the alleged violations, by ordering the competent authorities to address or remedy the issues denounced when appropriate. Consequently, by virtue of the principle of complementarity, and considering the adequate judicial response of the authorities, this Court accepts the preliminary objection filed by the State with respect to the alleged violations stemming from prison conditions at the CAI La Reforma to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Damas Vega Atencio. 116. However, the Court finds that the State did not indicate how its domestic authorities remedied the alleged violation of Damas Vega Atencio’s right to personal integrity, with respect to the search in which his genitals were touched and his belongings were destroyed or stolen. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection in this regard, and will examine this alleged violation in the chapter on merits of this judgment. Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, of December 27, 2012 (evidence file, folio 1873). Decision No. 2013000730 of the Constitutional Chamber, of January 18, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1878 and 1879). 157 Cf. Decision No. 2013000730 of the Constitutional Chamber, of January 18, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1881). 158 Cf. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, provisional measures for Rojas Madrigal in respect of the case of Amrhein et al., May 25, 2017. 159 Cf. Expert opinion of Doctor Juan Geraldo Ugalde, of August 22, 2017 (evidence file, folios 44467-44474). 160 Cf. Expert opinion of Doctor Juan Geraldo Ugalde, of August 22, 2017 (evidence file, folios 44470). 155 156 43