215. As previously mentioned (supra para. 26), the State indicated that, under the
friendly settlement agreement signed on August 28, 2007, with the petitioners in case No.
12,535, Mendoza Prison Inmates, “the province of Mendoza undert[ook] to take all the
necessary measures, within its sphere of competence, to continue the investigations of all
the human rights violations that resulted in the issue of the provisional measures that were
ordered” by the Inter-American Court in favor of the persons held in these prisons.” In this
regard, the State advised that, “in the context of court case No. 46,824/05, entitled
‘Inquiry, death of Videla Fernández, Ricardo,’ […] on November 3, 2011, the […] Attorney
General of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza instructed the
investigating prosecutor […] to consult with his superior regarding the presentation […] of
the private complainant […].” In addition, it indicated that the Human Rights Directorate of
the province of Mendoza had forwarded a copy of the Inter-American Commission’s Merits
Report No. 172/10 to the said Attorney General, so that the latter could comply with
recommendation No. 6 of the this report concerning the investigation into the death of
Ricardo Videla. According to the State, this report was “sent to the Complex Crimes
Prosecution Unit in order to respond to the request.” Once the competence of that entity
had been established, “the production of the evidence suggested by the chamber
prosecutor” recommenced.
A.2. Considerations of the Court
216. This Court observes that, under the friendly settlement agreement signed on August
28, 2007, in case No. 12,532 Mendoza Prison Inmates (supra para. 33), the State
acknowledged “the objective responsibility of the province of Mendoza in the case” for the
violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Ricardo Videla,
among other individuals, owing to the detention conditions to which he was subjected in the
Mendoza Prison, and because he “was found hanging in his cell in Unit 1.1 of the prison on
June 21, 2005.” The Court will now examine the alleged lack of investigation into these facts
by the State, in light of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection recognized
in the American Convention. 287
A.2.1. Obligation to investigate the death of a person in the State’s custody
217. The Court has indicated that Article 8 of the American Convention signifies that the
victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, should have extensive opportunities
to be heard and to participate in the respective proceedings, both to try and clarify the facts
and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. The Court has also considered
that States have the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to those who claim to
be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in
accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general
obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by
the Convention to all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). Furthermore, the Court
has indicated that the obligation to investigate and the corresponding right of the presumed
victims or their next of kin are derived not only from treaty-based provisions under
287
The pertinent part of Article 8 of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to
a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal,
previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the
determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”
Article 25(1) of the American Convention stipulates that: “[e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or
any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental
rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation
may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.”
71