environmental nature, given the living conditions of the Provincial Prison, but also due to the residue of unfavorable variables that they have been exposed to throughout their life […].” 162 118. In view of this decision, the representative of Ms. Fernandez filed an appeal. 163 This appeal was rejected by the Second Criminal Chamber of the province of Mendoza on September 25, 2006, thus confirming the closure of the proceedings, considering that there was no act that had the “characteristics of an offense that warranted public action […],” because, “despite the possible existence of simple negligence or unsafe working conditions in the prison, [Ricardo David Videla’s] announcement that he would hang himself […] had no […] significance and was not believed by the officials or by the inmates themselves […].” 164 119. Finally, on February 28, 2011, the representative of Ms. Fernández requested that the case be reopened and that the investigation be continued, citing as a new fact Merits Report No. 172/10 issued by the Inter-American Commission in this case, which found flaws in the investigation previously conducted. 165 However, on March 29, 2011, the Investigating Prosecutor of Departmental Prosecution Unit No. 1 of Mendoza indicated that there was no new evidence that would invalidate the order to close the case, and therefore rejected the request. 166 F.4. Administrative investigation into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández 120. On June 21, 2005, the head of the Security Unit of the Mendoza Prison informed the Deputy Director of the San Felipe Complex about the events surrounding the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández. 167 121. On June 23, 2005, the Administrative Head of the Health Division sent a letter to the Director of the Mendoza Provincial Prison advising that the doctor in charge of maximum security Unit 11 had told him, that same day, that the situation in this unit was “‘serious,’ because several inmates ha[d] indicated their intention to commit suicide by hanging or other methods.” The doctor added that the system of 21-hour confinement caused the inmates severe distress and generated “despairing [sic] anguish” and “generalized anxiety that can only lead them to think of death as a possible way out.” Therefore, the doctor asked the director to “find a solution to the problem” urgently. 168 162 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 5429 and 5430). 163 Cf. Appeal filed by the lawyer Fernando Gastón Peñaloza in judicial file P-46824/05, on September 8, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5446). 164 Cf. Decision of the Second Criminal Chamber in judicial file P-46824/05, of September 25, 2006 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folios 5449 and 5454). 165 Cf. Brief submitted by Fernando Gastón Peñaloza in judicial file P-46824/05, on February 28, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIV, folio 7622). 166 Cf. Decision of the prosecutor Gustavo Pirrello in judicial file P-46824/05, of March 29, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIV, folio 7631). 167 Cf. Note from Franco Fattori, Head of the Security Unit to the Deputy Director of the San Felipe Complex in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E dated June 21, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5498). 168 Cf. Note from Fernando Pizarro, Administrative Head of the Health Division to the Director of the Mendoza Provincial Prison in administrative file 7808/01/05/00105/E, of June 23, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome X, folio 5480) 42