11 17) That in that way, a decision contrary to the one sought, and as a consequence of which it would be possible to pursue the enforcement of the provisional measures adopted by the Inter-American Court –by means of the alleged accumulation- both against the National State and the Province of Mendoza, would imply as much as emptying the content of Article 99, subparagraph 1, of the National Constitution, and the international commitments undertaken by the Argentine Nation. […] 20) That regardless of all the above, it is important to enhance that, as a consequence of the decision of this Court of February 13, 2007, the Supreme Court of Mendoza issued decision No. 20,037, dated February 14, 2007, by means of which –among other provisions- it requested this Court to “subpoena the National Executive Power so that it proceeds to the immediate and urgent relocation of the federal inmates incarcerated in the Provincial Penitentiary”; and this Court must adjudge on the matter as the request is directed to it. 21) That the request must not be received through the alleged way. According to the provisions stated in law 24,660, regarding the points of interest herein, the State and the provinces may enter into agreements aimed to receive or transfer convicts from their respective jurisdictions, and the said transfer shall be charged to the petitioning State (Articles 212 and subsequent of the above mentioned law). The Province of Mendoza adhered to that provision by passing law 6,513. Consequently, the National Executive Power could barely be summoned to perform the above mentioned "immediate and urgent relocation" -by request of just one of the powers of the local Statewhen these institutionalizations exist on the basis of agreements entered into by the States, which legitimate representatives understood that the application of the system was convenient to guarantee a better individualization of the penalty and an effective integration of the Republic’s penitentiary system (Article 212 quoted above). 14. That in view of the principle of subsidiarity informed by the Inter-American System of human rights, an order for the adoption (or the broadening) of provisional measures under Article 63(2) of the American Convention is justified in situations of extreme seriousness and urgency and before the possibility of irreparable damage to the people respect to whom the ordinary guarantees existing in the State where they are requested turn out to be insufficient or not effective, or where the domestic authorities can not or do not want to make them prevail. 15. That regarding the people deprived of liberty in the Provincial Penitentiary of Mendoza who were then transferred to the Complejo Penitenciario III (Almafuerte) (III Penitentiary Complex –Almafuerte-) in Cacheuta, a provincial Criminal Enforcement Judge ordered the adoption of measures and the Director of the Penitentiary Complex issued several provisions on the matter (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 8, 9, 12, 17 and 18 and Considering Clauses No. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12). According to what has been informed, the construction of this Complex and the transfer of people thereto are solutions to which the State has turned to deal with the overcrowding problem in other penitentiaries, which is precisely one of the situations of fact which gave rise to the provisional measures at issue. In its last report, the State pointed out that at present there are 131 people deprived of liberty in the Complejo Penitenciario III (Almafuerte) (III Penitentiary Complex – Almafuerte-), who were transferred from the Provincial Penitentiary; the assisting professional staff that works there amounts to 23 people and the security guards