122. On July 4, 2005, the Board of the General Security Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice and Security ordered a preliminary investigation into information regarding the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. 169 On November 21, 2005, the designated investigator received the administrative case file and ordered that the relevant evidence be produced. 170 123. In an official note of January 5, 2006, the General Security Inspectorate asked the Prosecutor of the Capital Departmental Prosecution Unit for a copy of judicial file 46824/05 171 and, on March 28, 2006, that entity asked Departmental Prosecution Unit No. 1 to advise whether any of the prison staff had been charged in the judicial proceedings. 172 In an official note of April 5, 2006, the Deputy Secretary of the Capital Departmental Prosecution Unit advised that “no formal charges had been pressed against any of the prison staff.” 173 124. In addition, on May 16, 2006, a prison official testified that, during the prison inspections, they seized articles “such as belts [or] shoelaces” and that, in his opinion, it was an inmate who had given Ricardo David Videla Fernández the belt he had used to hang himself. Also, in this statement, the said person clarified that agent Macaccaro “did not have the key [… to the cell that inmate Videla Fernandez occupied,] because he only [… carried] the individual keys to each cell where any activity would take place; in other words, that of [the] janitor and that of [… an] inmate who had a visitor, [as …] this […] was a security measure.” 174 125. On May 17, 2006, the preliminary investigator asked the General Security Inspectorate of the province of Mendoza to proceed to close the case, without further action, given that, according to the evidence in the file, no administrative responsibility could be alleged against the prison staff. 175 Furthermore, on July 2, 2008, the legal counsel of the General Security Inspectorate issued a report in which he recommended to the Board of this entity that it archive the proceedings, because “the prison staff had committed no administrative offense […].” 176 G. The injuries sustained by Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez in Ezeiza Federal Prison Complex No. 1 169 Cf. Note of the Head of the General Security Inspectorate of the province of Mendoza in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E of June 4, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5503) 170 Cf. Note of sub-prefect Héctor Roberto Arango in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E of November 21, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5504 and 5505) 171 Cf. Note addressed to the prosecutor of the Departmental Prosecution Unit in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E of January 5, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5483). 172 Cf. Note addressed to Departmental Prosecution Unit No. 1 in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E of March 28, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5490). 173 Cf. Note of Departmental Prosecutor No. 1 to the Director of the General Security Inspectorate in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E of April 5, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5539). 174 Cf. Testimonial statement of Enrique Fernando Alvea Gutiérrez in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E dated May 17, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folios 5542 and 5543). 175 Cf. Request to archive the case by the judge responsible for the preliminary investigation in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E dated May 17, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5546). 176 Cf. Report of legal counsel Maximiliano Gómez in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E, dated July 2, 2008 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5554). 43