26 this Public Prosecutor’s Office, none of the circumstances surrounding this event suggests that this was a case of criminal neglect.” “[…] Therefore and inasmuch as the factors that must be present for an event to 78 constitute criminal neglect (Article 106 of the CPP ) or any other publicly actionable crime are not present, the present proceedings are hereby closed pursuant to Article 346, as the event under investigation does 79 not constitute a crime.” 106. On June 14, 2006, the next of kin of Ricardo Videla Fernández filed their objection to the closing of the proceedings. The judge of the Fourth Court of Guarantees was assigned to the case and on July 24, 2006, denied the petitioners’ request. He ordered the case closed after concluding that “this case cannot be decided on the basis of statements made by inmates, given the natural aversion they may have to the person and function of the prison staff. Thus and as already observed, the facts compiled make it impossible to attach any criminal blame to the accused prison personnel for any action that, one might claim, either came too late or constituted negligence and the like; there was certainly nothing that could 80 qualify as a crime.” 107. On July 31, 2006, the next of kin of the alleged victim appealed that decision, alleging that the court’s analysis of the facts was biased, that the evidence used to weigh the merits of the case 81 was selected arbitrarily, and that the court’s finding was incorrect. In their subsequent brief, titled “Appeal Report”, they alleged, inter alia, that the decision being appealed had done nothing more than legitimize the conduct of the prison personnel charged with protecting Ricardo Videla’s life, despite the fact that the prison guards were criminally liable for failing to act on their duty to provide proper assistance; Videla had warned them of the measure that he would take, which finally happened. They alleged that “sufficient elements were still present to move forward with the investigation into what transpired,” and asked that the 82 order to close case 46824/05 be revoked. 108. The appeal was decided by Mendoza Province’s Second Criminal Chamber, in a ruling delivered on September 25, 2006. In its decision, the court held that the court a quo had issued a duelyl reasoned decision, based on proper legal grounds, in which all the elements of the case were considered. It was, in the court’s view, a well reasoned decision in which the rules and principles governing the weighing of evidence were observed. It therefore denied the appeal filed and confirmed the lower court’s 83 decision to order the case closed. 109. The record for administrative case 7808/0I/05/00105/E, titled “General Security Inspection-Death of David Videla, alias ‘El Perro’, in the Provincial Penitentiary,” shows that on June 21, 2005, the head of the Mendoza Penitentiary Security Center, Franco Fattori, told the deputy director of the 84 San Felipe Complex about the events that had occurred in connection with young Videla’s death. The record also shows that on June 23, 2005, Dr. Fernando Pizarro, Administrative Chief of the Health 78 Code of Criminal Procedure. 79 June 6, 2006 decision to close case 46824/05. The State’s brief of October 29, 2009, with a copy of the proceedings conducted into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández attached. 80 July 2, 2006 decision of Judge Manuel Cruz Videla, Judge of the Fourth Court of Guarantees of Mendoza. The State’s brief received on October 29, 2009, with a copy of the proceedings conducted into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández attached, Attachment 3. 81 Appeal that Dr. Fernando Gastón Peñaloza, legal representative of young Videla’s next of kin, filed on July 31, 2006. The State’s brief of October 29, 2009, with a copy of the proceedings conducted into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández attached 82 Brief that Dr. Fernando Gastón Peñaloza, legal representative of young Videla’s next of kin, filed on September 8, 2006, with the Mendoza Province Second Criminal Chamber “Appeal Report. Objection Formula.” The State’s brief of October 29, 2009, with a copy of the proceedings conducted into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández attached. 83 Appeal decision of the Mendoza Second Criminal Chamber, dated September 25, 2006. Appeal that Dr. Fernando Gastón Peñaloza, legal representative of young Videla’s next of kin, filed on July 31, 2006. The State’s brief of October 29, 2009, with a copy of the proceedings conducted into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández attached. 84 Informative note “Subject: l/suicide. Inmate: Videla González Ricardo,” dated June 21, 2005, signed by the head of the Mendoza Penitentiary Security Center, Franco Fattori.