requested that a decision be taken on the status of the case “bringing charges against those allegedly responsible for the offense.” 154 114. On September 1, 2005, the lawyer Jorge Nelson Cardozo, who had visited Ricardo David Videla Fernández together with Dr. Claudia Cesarioni of the Prison Policy Monitoring Commission during the days before his death, gave his testimony. In his statement, he declared that “[d]uring two visits [to the Mendoza Prison, he] interviewed Videla Fernandez [… and] saw that he was not well […].” 155 Furthermore, on March 17 and May 12, 2006, two inmates and a prison official testified again. 156 115. On May 17, 2006, the representative of Stella Maris Fernandez requested that the Investigating Prosecutor “file claims against [the members of the prison staff] F[ernando] A[lvea], A[riel] M[accacaro], H[ector] J[orge] S[alas] P[edernera] and J[uan] B[alboa],” because “they had failed to comply with their obligations on realizing that there was a possibility that Videla Fernández was about to take his life and, after this event, the said conduct becoming a criminal offense.” 157 116. On June 6, 2006, the Investigating Prosecutor requested that the case be archived, considering, among other elements, that “it ha[d] been proved without a doubt that inmate Videla Fernández caused his own death.” 158 The Investigating Prosecutor also considered that criminal negligence had not been constituted, because, “apart from the testimony of the inmates, which are contradictory […], there [was] insufficient reason to suspect that the assistance [to intern Videla] [had not been] provided immediately.” 159 In response, the complainant’s representative contested the closure of the proceedings, arguing that the Investigating Prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence had been “arbitrary and selective.” 160 Finally on July 24, 2006, the judge responsible for procedural guarantees of the 10th Court of First Instance of Mendoza ordered the archiving of the proceedings, accepting the Prosecutor’s arguments, and without admitting the complainant’s request. 161 117. Regarding David Videla’s prison conditions when he died, the said judge indicated that it was “common knowledge that there [were] structural constraints in the Provincial Prison that affect[ed] the quality of life for the inmates; a situation that had long been awaiting a solution that was outside the sphere of judicial actions, [because it was] a matter that fell with the executive sphere.” The judge also mentioned that “the mental deterioration often observed in the inmates is a result of a number of factors, not only of an 154 Cf. Brief submitted by the Fernando Peñaloza in judicial file P-46824/05, dated August 28, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5343). 155 Cf. Testimonial statement of Jorge Nelson Cardozo in judicial file P-46824/05, dated September 1, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5367). 156 Cf. Testimonial statement of Pedro Jesús Zenteno in judicial file P-46824/05, dated March 17, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5373), and Testimonial statement of Ariel Gustavo Macaccaro Calderón in judicial file P-46824/05, dated May 12, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5382). 157 Cf. Brief submitted by the Fernando Peñaloza in judicial file P-46824/05, dated May 17, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5386). 158 Cf. Report of the prosecutor, Liliana Patricia Curri, in judicial file P-46824/05, of June 6, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folios 5412 and 5413.). 159 Cf. Report of the prosecutor, Liliana Patricia Curri, in judicial file P-46824/05, of June 6, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folios 5413 and 5416). 160 Cf. Brief of opposition submitted by Fernando Gastón Peñaloza in judicial file P-46824/05, dated June 14, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5419). 161 Cf. Decision of the judge responsible for procedural guarantees in judicial file P-46824/05, dated July 24, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5428 and 5429). 41