56 properly monitor his mental condition, is not sufficient for the Commission to conclude that Argentina fulfilled its obligation to guarantee the victim’s mental and moral integrity while he was alive. This finding is reinforced by the fact that the petition of habeas corpus the victim filed in May 2005 and the June 2005 report prepared by the Secretariat for Human Rights’ Prison Policy Monitoring Commission indicating that the victim was in very bad condition drew virtually no reaction from the prison authorities or even the court authorities. 267. Summarizing, the present case involves a combination of circumstances for which the State offers no explanation, thus allowing one to infer that these factors had a direct bearing on the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. These factors are as follows: the subhuman and inhumane detention conditions that he endured at the Mendoza Penitentiaries and the failure to monitor and provide proper medical care for the victim’s mental health problem. According to what the victim himself said prior to his death, his mental health problem and his desire to take his own life were exacerbated by the ever-present inhuman prison conditions he endured. 268. Apart from the failures and omissions on the part of prison personnel in the days and weeks leading up to Ricardo David Videla Fernández’ death, the failure to protect the victim was blatantly apparent even on the day he died. Because the victim had announced his intention to commit suicide, his guards should have spared no effort to protect the life and personal integrity of Ricardo David Videla. But the opposite happened: prison authorities did not keep a close eye on the victim, did not make an emergency call for medical or psychiatric personnel to intervene, and did not take the proper steps to guard him. 269. On the day of his death, Ricardo David Videla Fernández repeated his previous threats of suicide and said that he planned to hang himself. As one of the guards stated, “El Fajinero approached, hit the window and said ‘Videla tells me that he’s about to hang himself.” My boss ordered me to see what was happening; I entered sector 11A, approached Videla’s cell and saw that his belt was around his neck and attached to a high window; Videla said to me ‘I’m going to hang myself because I can’t stand it here any longer.’ I ran off to alert my boss, who was in the guard station. I told him that Videla was about to hang himself. My boss brought the key ring and entered the cellblock with me (…) when we looked through window, we saw that he had already hung himself (…) we entered the cell (…) checked for a pulse or other sign of life, and found that he was dead.” 270. In his second statement, the very same guard said that when he went to check on Ricardo David Videla to confirm what the inmate had said about Videla being on the verge of committing suicide, “he didn’t have the key to Videla’s cell; the practice in that cellblock, which was a maximumsecurity facility, was that one entered with the key to the cell that one was going to open. At that moment, it was not Videla’s recreation time or time to open his cell. As for the procedure followed when an inmate threatened to hurt himself, a threat that was a common occurrence in that cellblock, the procedure was to see whether it was true that the inmate was about to hurt himself, and then advise the superior for directives as to what measures one was to take.” 271. The Commission deems that these measures were not a proper response to an emergency situation and to the threat that the situation posed to the victim’s life and personal integrity. Summarizing, by failing to adopt measures to improve the subhuman, inhumane detention conditions, by not providing medical treatment suitable to the victim’s condition, and by not reacting properly to his suicide threats on the day of his death, the Argentine State was guilty of a series of omissions that caused Ricardo David Videla Fernández’ health to deteriorate and ultimately caused his death. The Commission therefore concludes that the Argentine State violated Ricardo David Videla Fernández’ right to humane treatment and his right to life, protected under articles 5(1), 5(2) and 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Commission will now turn its attention to the omissions and irregularities that were the basis for the Commission’s finding that the State had disregarded its duty to ensure a proper investigation into the events that transpired. 2. Analysis of whether the investigations constituted an effective recourse.