24 him with security despite his asking them to do so. He also reported that he was forced to sign a document dropping the petition for habeas corpus relief.121 99. In light of said information, the Constitutional Chamber requested the CAI director to submit a report on the allegations within a period of 48 hours.122 It also issued an order to take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Rojas “receives the medical care he needs to adequately treat his ailments, either at the Institutional Care Center [CAI facilities] itself (…) or at an appropriate hospital facility (…). Additionally the claimant must be immediately placed in a location where his life and safety are not at risk.”123 On December 21, 2006, the CAI La Reforma prison Director and other officials of the facilities presented the report requested by the Constitutional Chamber, refuting the allegations made by Mr. Rojas Madrigal in this petition habeas corpus relief.124 100. On January 9, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber denied the habeas corpus petition. The Constitutional Chamber found the information provided by the CAI La Reforma prison authorities to be proven fact.125 101. On January 17, 2007, the General Directorate of Social Adaptation issued an official letter to the Institutional Level Coordinator noting that Mr. Rojas claimed in a letter of January 8 that “his life continues to be in jeopardy” and “he requests that he be placed in another prison facility in 121 Annex 57. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, dated December 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 7, 2007. 122 Annex 57. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, dated December 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 7, 2007. 123 Annex 57. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, dated December 18, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 7, 2007. 124 Annex 58. Official Letter from the Institutional Care Center La Reforma [CAI prison facility], dated December 21, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 15, 2008. The CAI report notes that it is true that Mr. Rojas was admitted 124 to Cellblock C in August 2003 and that he stated: “in the last seven years he has not used any treatment.” The officials reported that i) he received medical care in an external examination in October 2006; ii) the appointment to treat his hernia is pending; iii) he was diagnosed with diabetes and was given his prison leave slip to undergo several tests, which have not been conducted because of “his own inaction (…) [inasmuch as] all that needs to be done is (…) show the referrals to the security managers in charge of external medical visits.” As for the alleged fainting of Mr. Rojas and his treatment in the hospital, they 124 noted that “there is no medical record of the claimant.” With regard to the conditions in Cellblock B of CAI La Reforma, they claimed Mr. Rojas’ allegation is false, inasmuch as medical examinations are conducted every day averaging 16 to 20 patients 124 per day. They further contended that on December 20, 2006, an attempt was made to conduct a medical examination of Mr. Rojas but he refused to be examined exclaiming that “he was in good shape and that he was not going to undergo the evaluation.” With regard to the alleged acts of robbery and the beating taken by Mr. Rojas, they reported that it is true that he provided a confidential report on extortion by other inmates in June 2006 but that “it is not possible for them to have found out about it. Notwithstanding, they claimed that the persons accused of this were transferred to other areas. Additionally, they claimed that it was not proven that he had been a victim of assaults and threats, nor is there any record of any request to ascertain these acts. They noted that no reports are on record that corroborate that Mr. Rojas has committed any disciplinary offenses nor are any precautionary measures in effect for him, which is proof that he has a healthy rapport with his cellmates. Lastly, they claimed that it is untrue that he was forced to withdraw a habeas corpus relief petition. They admit that he was robed in an accidental situation and that, even though they asked him whether he wants to be relocated, Mr. Rojas answered that “he is fine where he is.” 125 Annex 59. Decision No. 2007-000008 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated January 9, 2007. Annex to the petitioner’s communication of April 15, 2008.