appropriate procedure in the event those rules had been applied in any case to the prejudice of the petitioner. It also claims, in relation to alleged problems of access to the judgment because it was not available in written form, that the petitioner did not exhaust domestic remedies, where the most appropriate course would have been to petition for a writ of amparo, or take other administrative actions. The State further claims that the petition was presented out of time. Petition 1083-06: Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez 67. The State rejects the petitioners’ allegations. His particular allegations include, notably, the alleged improper extension of preventive detention, which the State claims was a decision in accordance with national norms70 and jurisprudence, as well as international guidelines on the matter. It states that the alleged victim’s conduct was an essential consideration, given that Mr. Martínez Meléndez had fled the country for four years while under a preventive measure less onerous than a custodial sentence, and that it was therefore reasonable and proportionate that the measure be extended given the danger of flight.Indeed, the State maintains that the measure imposed on Mr. Martínez Meléndez should be examined as a very exceptional measure in light of the particular circumstances of the case and that the purpose of the measure was to ensure that the purposes of the trial were fulfilled. Petition P-1111-06: Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández 68. The State rejects the petitioners’ allegations. As to the allegations of supposed deficiencies in the conditions of detention, the State stresses that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court has repeatedly ordered the penitentiary system to take corrective measures, seeking to provide those in custody with the minimum conditions to ensure that their custody is not humiliating. 69. Regarding the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted, the State alleges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. It specifically alleges that subsequent to the adoption of Law 8.503, the petitioners could have filed a request for review. It also states that they could have availed themselves of a petition of unconstitutionality to contest the defects in the law that they allege. As to the claim that at the time they were detained, they were not given judicial guarantees, it indicates that they did not exhaust the habeas corpus petition, and that they could have filed a petition for a writ of amparo concerning the supposedly inadequate prisons conditions. 70. The State indicates that even if the IACHR were to consider that domestic remedies had been exhausted, it should take into account that notification of the appeal was given on August 6, 2005, that is, more than one year before the petition was presented to the IACHR and therefore it was presented out of time. Petition 1256-06: Carlos Eduardo Yépez Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga and Miguel Antonio Valverde 71. The State rejects the petitioners’ allegations. In particular, with regard to the alleged absence of an interpreter at the time of notification of the charges and the preliminary hearing, the State contends that such allegations may not be made once the criminal case has been closed, since that shows that the petitioners did understand all the actions that took place during the trial71. It also contends that during the criminal trial, the petitioners had the assistance of defense counsel, and it therefore contends that it is illogical that defense counsel would not have noticed that his clients did not understand the acts taking place in the proceedings in which they sentenced, or that he would have failed to take the appropriate steps to have the court authorities appoint an official interpreter to safeguard the interests of his clients. 70 The State contends that even though the regular and special periods of preventive detention expired on June 3, 2006, the Trial Court’s decision dated June 2, 2006, which ordered extension of preventive detention, was based on Articles 258 and 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 71 The State also contends that both petitioners are Colombian nationals and know the Spanish language. 16