220. Regarding judicial investigation P-46824/05, the Court observes that, by a decision of July 24, 2006, the judge responsible for procedural safeguards of the 10th First Instance Court of Mendoza ordered that the case be closed at the request of the investigating prosecutor, because, in his opinion, from the evidence in the case file it could not be inferred that third parties were involved in the apparent suicide of Ricardo David Videla Fernandez. Furthermore, according to the judge, it could not be inferred that the prison staff had responded improperly to inmate Videla Fernandez’s threats to harm himself or to their duty to act immediately once they became aware that he had been found hanged (supra para. 116). Similarly, in the said decision, the judge indicated that the determination of the possible responsibilities of the staff of the Mendoza Prison for the conditions inside this detention center “exceed[ed] the sphere of judicial actions,” and was a “matter that fell within the executive sphere” (supra para. 117). 221. In this regard, the Court has established in its case law that, when a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention on Human Rights, this treaty is binding on all its organs, including the Judiciary and the Executive, whose members must ensure that the effects of the provisions of these treaties are not lessened by the application of laws or interpretations that are contrary to its object and purpose. The judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a “control of the conformity” between domestic law and the human rights treaties to which the State is a party; evidently, within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and other organs involved in the administration of justice, such as the public prosecution service, must take into account not only the American Convention and other inter-American instruments, but also their interpretation by the Inter-American Court. 294 222. The Court observes that in the context of the judicial investigation opened into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, there were indications that he was in a depressed mood in the days before his death and that he was suffering, among other factors, due to the deplorable conditions in which he was detained – which the State had recognized previously – and the prolonged confinement regime of more than 20 hours a day, which was verified by Ricardo Flores, a member of the Prison Policy Monitoring Commission responsible for the unit in which Ricardo David Videla Fernandez was being held (supra para. 107). Nevertheless, at no point were the possible responsibilities of the prison staff investigated for the presumed failure to comply with their duty to prevent violations to the right to life of Videla Fernández owing to the omissions related, on the one hand, to his detention conditions and, on the other hand, to his state of depression, factors that may have contributed to his death. It is worth noting in this regard that, in the days following this event, a doctor in charge of the unit in which Videla Fernández was being held stated that the situation in this unit was “serious” and that several inmates had expressed the desire to kill themselves (supra para. 121). In addition, under the friendly settlement agreement signed in case No. 12,532 Mendoza Prison Inmates, the State assumed responsibility, in general, for the violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity of the inmates of the Mendoza Prison, including Ricardo Videla, owing to the deplorable condition in which they were being held (supra para. 33). Thus, under this agreement, an ad hoc Court was created to determine the corresponding reparations. In an arbitral award of November 29, 2010, that court indicated, among other matters, that “the government of the province of 294 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, footnote 193. 73