30. Based on the arguments of the Commission and the pleadings of the parties, first, the Court observes that the Commission’s Merits Report included a section on general facts related to the “detention conditions in the Mendoza Provincial Prison.” However, in section IV on “proven facts” of the Merits Report submitted to the Court, the Commission did not establish specific facts regarding the presumed detention conditions of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal in this prison. Therefore, this Court finds that the State’s argument on this point is invalid. Consequently, henceforth the Court will refer only to the situation of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. 31. The Court underscores that, pursuant to Article 47(d) of the American Convention, a petition shall be declared inadmissible when it is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” This Court has established that “[t]he phrase ‘substantially the same’ signifies that there must be similarity between the cases. For this similarity to exist, the presence of three elements is required, namely: that the parties are the same, that the purpose is the same, and that the legal grounds are identical.” 16 32. In Section IV of the Merits Report on the “proven facts,” the Commission established, among other matters, that, “in the absence of a different explanation from the State”, it could be inferred that “the inhuman detention conditions to which [Ricardo David Videla Fernández] was subjected” in the Mendoza Provincial Prison and “the absence of adequate medical care and monitoring in response to the specific mental health condition he suffered” were directly related to his death, which was not properly investigated. The Commission indicated that “his mental health problem and his intention to take his own life were aggravated by the persistence of the detention conditions he suffered.” Therefore, the Commission concluded that the State had violated the rights to personal integrity and to life of Ricardo David Videla Fernández recognized in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In addition, the Commission established that “the State did not provide the next of kin of Ricardo David Videla Fernández with an effective remedy to clarify what happened and to establish who was responsible.” Therefore, it concluded that the State had violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Commission did not specify which of his next of kin would be victims of this supposed violation. However, in the Merits Report in this case, when referring, in general terms, to the next of kin of the five presumed victims condemned to life imprisonment and reclusion for life, who include Ricardo David Videla Fernández, it mentioned that his next of kin include his father, Ricardo Roberto Videla, and his mother, Stella Maris Fernández. The Commission did not establish other facts concerning the supposed general conditions of detention of Ricardo David Videla during the time he was deprived of his liberty in this prison. 33. In addition, the Court observes that Report 84/11, which records the abovementioned friendly settlement agreement, was preceded by Admissibility Report 70/05 of October 13, 2005, in which the Inter-American Commission “concluded that it was competent to examine the petition regarding the supposed violations of the rights to life, personal integrity and health, contained in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in relation to the detention conditions of the inmates of the Mendoza Prison and the Gustavo André Lavalle Unit.” The Commission also concluded that “it would analyze the possible violation of Articles 1, 2, 7 and 25 of the Convention in relation to [the] obligations to 16 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No.61, para. 53, and Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 48. 15