indicates that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court established a provision of a similar nature in its jurisprudence62. 59. As to conditions of detention, the State alleges that in order to safeguard citizen security, it isolates and deprives of their liberty persons who have violated the law, while respecting human rights63.It adds that traditionally, Costa Rica has maintained high levels of quality in important aspects of the operations of the penitentiary system, including a low percentage of “unconvicted prisoners”.It reports, however, that over the last two years, the prison population grew by more than 30%, while the historical rate of growth was 4% per year, and that this caused overcrowding of the prison system that has affected the prisoners’ living conditions.It adds that investments have been made, and that the National Development Plan 2011-2014 includes a chapter on citizen security, and enhancement of the police and the penitentiary system. It adds that judges overseeing execution of the sentence (Jueces de la Ejecución de la Pena) are empowered to require the prison administration to take corrective measures needed to guarantee full respect for the rights of prisoners. Specific allegations Petition 233-04: Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos Manuel González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga 60. The State refutes all of the allegations that have been presented 64. In particular, it indicates that the allegations are, on the one hand, a reiteration of the arguments presented in the appeals proceedings (recurso de casación), which claims were validly rejected by the court; and on the other, that there are a number of claims that could have been presented and discussed in the domestic jurisdiction, but that the petitioners did not file the relevant procedures, and thereby eliminated the State’s opportunity to consider their claims. It adds that, with regard to the time limit for filing an appeal, the petitioners sought retroactive application of a rule that granted a longer time period; this was out of order, considering that it was a procedural and not a substantive rule, and hence the principle of positive criminal retroactivity does not apply. It additionally alleges that the subject of the case was a matter of public knowledge, given the dimensions of the charges in the case. 61. As to the requirement in the Convention that domestic remedies be exhausted, the State alleges that the petitioners did not make use of the legal remedies available domestically, since they did not request a review procedure. Petition 669-04: Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal65 62. The State refutes the petitioner's allegations. In particular, it contends that the petitioner has filed many petitions for writs of amparo and habeas corpus, analysis of which confirms that he has enjoyed judicial protection, even in repeated cases. As to the alleged partiality of the justices, it states that it has not violated the Convention, and that faced with the multiplicity of actions filed by the petitioner, it became impossible to appoint judges that had not participated 62 As to petition No 587-05, the State particularly indicates that on this matter, the petitioner does not offer convincing evidence that in his particular case, he was denied the possibility of making use of technical equipment to study the judgment against him. 63 The State provides information on the conditions of imprisonment in the “La Reforma” detention center. It indicates that for infrastructure reasons, some people are sleeping on the floor, “and some have been provided with foam or a mattress”. As to security, it indicates that the Penitentiary Police provide custody and security on the perimeter of the penitentiary facility and to the prison population, prison staff and visitors. As to food, it reports that in the La Reforma center,from 2009 to date, food is given out under supervision to ensure that it is evenly shared and adequate for all prisoners. 64 The State claims that all of the accused had the opportunity to effectively exercise his rights; that the judges based their decisions on legal criteria; that he does not specifically state how the principles of evaluating and interpreting the evidence were violated; that the criminal figure used is not an open-ended one and that it does set out the elements required, that the evidence in the case file provided evidence that served as an objective basis for the verdict; that it is not true that “vital” evidence was rejected,(contd.) nor that evidence favoring the defense was ignored; that the alleged victims were detained as the result of their criminal conviction, similarly for the ban on holding public office for ten years. 65 The State alleges that the court files show no judicial cases regarding the alleged victim during the period 1980-1989, and it therefore maintains that his claim is invalid. 14