days prior to the death of Videla Fernandez, from the doctor of the Prison Service, and from the Prison nurse (supra para. 109). Similarly, on March 17 and May 12, 2006, an inmate and a guard at the Mendoza Prison testified once again. On June 6, 2006, investigating prosecutor Curri requested that the file be archived, and on July 24, 2006, the judge responsible for procedural safeguards of the 10th Court of First Instance of Mendoza ordered that the case be closed. Thus, this Court has no elements to consider that a period of procedural inactivity of approximately six months between September 2005 and March 2006 was unreasonable for this type of investigation, notwithstanding the contents of section A.2.1.1 of this Chapter. B. Investigation of the acts of torture against Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez B.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 230. The Commission indicated that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate effectively all the reports of acts of torture, because “both the investigating prosecutor and the judge of the case took very little action to discover the causes of the reported incidents.” It argued that the State had closed “the criminal cases undertaken based on the abuse suffered” by the youths Núñez and Mendoza “because the victims did not individualize the perpetrators of the act.” Therefore, the Commission concluded that the facts were not investigated “diligently and effectively” and that the State had violated, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez, Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 231. The representative argued that “[e]ven though the injuries [of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez] were verified by a medical examiner from the national Prison Oversight Office and by a forensic physician from the National Justice Department, the investigations opened to identify those responsible for these facts were unsuccessful, in clear violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 [of the American Convention] and [Articles] 1 and 6 [of the Convention Against Torture].” According to the representative, “without taking into account the special situation of vulnerability of [the presumed victims] owing to the difficulties faced by individuals deprived of their liberty to assert their claims, the presiding judge of Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 2 of Lomas de Zamora closed the investigations, based on ‘the limited collaboration’ of the victims […].” The State did not submit any arguments on this point. B.2. Considerations of the Court 232. This Court has indicated that, under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the obligation of the State to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 305 This obligation to investigate is increased by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention Against Torture, 306 which oblige States to 305 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, para. 274. 306 Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that: [t]he States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention.” Furthermore, Article 6 stipulates that: “[i]n accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts 76