Mendoza Prisons, designed, inter alia, to protect the life and personal integrity of the persons detained in the Mendoza Prison. 301 However, the State has not provided any evidence to prove that it has re-opened the investigations into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernandez as of that date, as alleged by Argentina (supra para. 215). 302 227. Based on all the above, the Court finds that Argentina is responsible for the violation of the rights contained in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Stella Maris Fernández and Ricardo Roberto Videla, mother and father of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, owing to the lack of due diligence in the investigations to clarify the death of their son. A.2.2.2. Other alleged violations 228. Regarding the argument of the representative that, supposedly, the evidence collected under judicial file P-46824/05 was assessed arbitrarily, because some pieces of evidence were given preference over others, the Court underlines that the international jurisdiction is subsidiary in nature, 303 reinforcing and complementary; 304 hence, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.” The Court is called on to decide whether, in the specific case, the State violated a right protected by the Convention, thereby incurring international responsibility. Therefore, this Court will not rule on this point. 229. As for the alleged lack of diligence in the investigation owing to the lapse of approximately seven months between August 2005 and March 2006, during which supposedly “no evidentiary action was taken” (supra para. 214), this Court verified that, on the day that Ricardo David Videla Fernandez died, judicial file P-466824/05 was opened and an autopsy was performed on the inmate’s body. In addition, on June 30, 2005, Gustavo Olguín Masotto, a member of the Forensic Police, inspected the cell occupied by Videla Fernández. Furthermore, between June and September 2005, at least seven testimonial statements were taken from the staff of the Mendoza Provincial Prison, four testimonial statements from persons incarcerated together with Ricardo Videla, and two testimonial statements from members of the Prison Policy Monitoring Commission. Also, statements were taken from another person who visited the prison with the said Commission during the 301 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2001, first and second operative paragraphs; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2006, first operative paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, first and second operative paragraphs. 302 In this regard, the Court observes that the State cited as evidence of these allegations a document entitled “Annex I(b) Judicial proceedings related to the facts alleged by the IACHR and the representative of the petitioners before the Inter-American Court,” which contains, among other matters, a summary of the actions taken in the judicial proceedings opened in relation to the death of Ricardo David Videla. However, this document does not contain any reference to the entity that prepared it or any other element that would allow the Court to determine its probative value. 303 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, para. 38. 304 The Preamble to the American Convention states that the international protection is designed to “reinforc[e] or complement the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” See also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 26, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 38. 75