in one or other of the claims. It explains that that does not imply violation of the principles of impartiality and objectivity. 63. As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State contends that the fact that most of the outcomes of the cases filed by the petitioner do not satisfy his expectations does not mean that his human rights were violated.As to supposed violations of Article 5 of the Convention, the State asserts that the petitioner has not adequately exhausted domestic remedies66.Regarding the criminal case in which judgment No 614-09 was handed down, it contends that it is still under way, given that appeals proceedings are still pending a decision. With respect to the alleged failure to formally read the charges,it claims that the petitioner did not exhaust domestic remedies, that he does not offer facts to support his claim, and that he had the opportunity to present his complaints regarding procedural irregularities during the preliminary hearing and that he did not do so. Petition 1174-04: Damas Vega Atencio 64. The State rejects the petitioner’s allegations. In particular, it maintains that even though the alleged victim was transferred to “Maximum Security” as a precautionary measure in the face of an uprising and hunger strike that occurred on September 28, 2008, this does not mean that he was put in isolation67. It further alleges that the principle of the rule of law is not violated in the Criminal Code as a whole, nor in its Article 213; that Mr. Vega Atencio worked on several jobs and that he received the corresponding remuneration for them, under the terms and conditions provided for in the regulations and signed agreements; that he has available to him the pertinent health and nutritional services, that his health condition is monitored, and that he is provided with a special diet. It indicates that the placement of convicts in the country’s various prisons is done in accordance with the legal regulations. Petition 221-05: Miguel Mora Calvo 65. The State rejects the petitioner’s allegations. It specifically contends that the petitioner has not exhausted domestic remedies. It states in particular that: a) at the time the petition was submitted to the IACHR, requests for review of judgments No. 736-98 and No. 632-2000 were still awaiting decision; b) he did not file a request for review of judgment No. 218-0368.It stresses that persons who were sentenced for a crime prior to the Law on Criminal Appeals, who may have been prevented from filing an appeal against their sentence because of the previous rules on admissibility of such an appeal, may avail themselves of the review procedure to bring their claims before the court (claims of fact or of law that may not have been resolved through the appeals procedure). Petition 587-05: Manuel Hernández Quesada 66. The State rejects the petitioner’s allegations. As to the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted, the State alleges that such domestic remedies were not exhausted 69. Regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of laws Nos. 8.503, 7.728 and 7.333 that, in the petitioner’s view, adversely affect the principle of impartiality and violate Article 8 of the American Convention, the State contends that such allegations were not presented for a domestic debate, through an unconstitutionality action, which would have been the most 66 On this matter, the State alleges that the petitioner has available to him a number of remedies before the Court supervising execution of the sentencet (Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena), which is the body responsible for such matters as cases of illness, complaints, isolation, etc., none of which he has used. It also states that Mr. Rojas Madrigal is a prisoner who is constantly filing cases with the various administrative and judicial bodies to present his disagreements. It claims that in none of these complaints has it been determined that his rights were violated by alleged aggressions and wounds inflicted by staff of the Penitentiary Security unit. 67 The State indicates that the Director of “La Reforma” reported that prisoners housed in these cells do not have contact with each other, but are not in a state of isolation. 68 The State contends that the petitioner may not use groundless arguments for not having filed a petition for review – i.e., that the judges that would hear the review request would be the same as those who decided the appeals casegiven that the legal system operates with alternate or substitute judges. 69 Despite this, the State asserts that the petitioner had the opportunity to file for a review procedure under the rules of Law No 8.503, which was decided by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court on May 23, 2007 on substantiated legal grounds, and the review was denied. 15