37. Regarding the first element to determine whether the cases are similar (supra para. 31), the Court observes that in both the instant case and in friendly settlement report 84/11, Case 12,532 on the Inmates of the Mendoza Prisons, the parties are Ricardo David Videla, presumed victim, deceased, and Ricardo Videla and Stella Maris Fernández – that is, his father and mother - and the State of Argentina. For the Court, the fact that other victims are included in case 12,532 is not relevant; but rather that Ricardo David Videla Fernández was specifically and expressly considered one of them. 38. Regarding the second element (supra para. 31), the Court finds that there is a similarity between the purpose of this case and that of case 12,532 processed before the Inter-American Commission as regards the detention conditions of inmate Videla Fernández in the Mendoza Prison, which, as indicated in both cases, contributed to his death. However, on the other hand, the cases do not have similar purposes as regards the allegations concerning the supposed absence of a diligent investigation into his death. Neither the friendly settlement agreement ratified by the Inter-American Commission on October 12, 2007, nor friendly settlement report No. 84/11, by which the Commission approved the agreement, record any acquiescence to the supposed absence of investigation into the death of Ricardo Videla and, therefore, nor is there any acknowledgement of the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as the Commission alleged in this case. The mere undertaking made by the State to continue the pertinent investigations, as indicated in the agreement and in the friendly settlement report, is not the same as a formal acknowledgement of the supposed absence of investigation and, thus, of the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. 39. As regards the third element (supra para. 31), the Court observes that some of the legal grounds are identical in both cases, because the friendly settlement report indicates that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention. In the instant case, the Commission also asked the Court to declare a violation of those provisions to the detriment of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. 40. In conclusion, the Court considers that this preliminary objection is admissible, but only with regard to the detention conditions of Ricardo David Videla Fernández in the Mendoza Prisons that supposedly contributed to his death on June 21, 2005, and with regard to the violation of the rights established in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. The preliminary objection is not admissible as regards the supposed failure to investigate his death and the presumed violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of “his next of kin.” C. Preliminary objection on the procedural claims of the representative with regard to Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal C.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 41. The State indicated that, on March 29, 2011, following the submission of this case to the Court, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal’s official Public Defender filed an appeal for review against the judgment sentencing Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal to life imprisonment. On September 22, 2011, the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice admitted the appeal and ordered the installation of a chamber in order to review the sentence. In this regard, Argentina indicated that, on March 9, 2012, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of 17