undertaken to comply with a wide range of measures of reparation, most of which it had already fulfilled, and other were starting to be implemented. 27. In addition, the State indicated that the issue of the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández was included in a document signed by the government of the province of Mendoza on August 28, 2007, in the context of Case No. 12,532 on the Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons, and that the State had even undertaken to take all the necessary steps within its sphere of competence to ensure that the investigations continued into all the human rights violations that led to the granting of provisional measures by the InterAmerican Court, including the death of Ricardo David Videla. It concluded that the Court could not exercise its competence with regard to the alleged violations of the rights contained in Articles 4 and 5 of American Convention to the detriment of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, as well as of Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument, to the detriment of his next of kin, because, if it did so, it would be breaching the principle of “international res judicata.” 28. The Commission indicated that when it issued its ruling on the merits of this case, the specific list of presumed victims in case 12,532 on the Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons had not yet been defined, and that it was not unusual for certain general situations, such as problems of a structural nature in detention centers, to be analyzed in the context of different petitions, provided that the presumed victims were different. It emphasized that, in case 12,532 on the Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons, which culminated in a friendly settlement, the list of presumed victims was not closed, nor were all the victims individualized. Meanwhile, this case refers to the specific situation of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal during the time they spent in the Mendoza Prisons, as well as the violations of the American Convention arising from this. In particular, regarding the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, the Commission indicated that “although the name of the youth Videla Fernández was included when addressing the issue of violent deaths in the prisons, his death was not discussed during the adversarial proceedings, and neither was the component concerning the obligation of prevention and investigation, matters that are analyzed in this case.” Therefore, the Commission indicated that this preliminary objection was inadmissible. 29. The representative argued that the objection of international res judicata was clearly inadmissible. With regard to Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, the representative stated that he had never been included as a victim in case No. 12,532, and did not appear in the official record acknowledging State responsibility dated August 28, 2007. The facts and human rights violations discussed in this case had never been debated or determined in that international proceeding. As regards Ricardo David Videla Fernández, the representative stated that he was included on the list of victims regarding whom the State admitted its international responsibility within the framework of the friendly settlement procedure in case 12,532 on the Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons. However, regarding his death and threats to his physical integrity and health, the State’s acknowledgement was partial. Argentina only acknowledged some human rights violations concerning the detention conditions he suffered that led directly to his death, but not other circumstances related to the treatment he received during his detention while serving an unlawful sentence. She underscored that, in the friendly settlement agreement, the State had not acknowledged its international responsibility for the errors or delay in the investigations into the deaths and serious attacks on physical integrity committed against the inmates of the Mendoza Prisons. B2. Considerations of the Court 14