20 Court could be pursued - via the sought-after joinder - both against the National State and against the Province of Mendoza would mean emptying Art. 99, subparagraph 1st of the National Constitution as well as the international commitments assumed by the Nation of Argentina of their content. [...] 20) That without prejudice to all this, it should be highlighted that as a consequence of the ruling of this Court dated February 13, 2007, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Mendoza has handed down order 20.037, of February 14, 2007, through which - among the other provisions with which it concerns itself - it has requested that this Tribunal “call upon the National Executive Branch to move immediately and urgently to relocate the federal inmates housed in the Provincial Penitentiary;” and this Court must rule on this given that it was presented with the request. 21) That the request shall not by received via the intended route. Pursuant to the provisions contained in Law 24.660 applicable herein, the Nation and the provinces shall reach agreements on the receipt or transfer of convicts from their corresponding jurisdictions, and the transfer in question must paid for by the State requesting it (arts. 212 and following, cited law). The Province of Mendoza joined that provision through the passage of law 6513. In this way, the National Executive Branch cannot be called upon to carry out the aforementioned “immediate and urgent relocation” - at the request of only one of the branches of authority of the local state - when the housing of the inmates takes place based on agreements signed by the States, with the legitimate representatives of that system of application understanding it to be advisable in order to ensure better individualization of sentences and the effective integration of the Republic’s penitentiary system (art. 212 cited). e) On October 21, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza issued a ruling ordering the provincial government to prepare an annual and comprehensive working plan in no more than 60 days that would include the renovation or replacement of all the Boulogne Sur Mer prison facilities. 45. Attending to the principle of complementary and subsidiary nature that guides the Inter-American Human Rights System, an order to adopt or maintain original measures is justified in situations contemplated under Article 63(2) of the American Convention, with regard to which the ordinary guarantees existing in the State are insufficient or ineffective when the domestic authorities cannot or do not wish to make them prevail.23 Although there is no information on the record indicating the way in which the rulings of the domestic judicial authorities have been complied with or implemented, the truth is that the domestic authorities have been attentive to the situation of the Mendoza Penitentiaries since the Tribunal ordered the provisional measures. This allows for the reasonable assumption that they will continue adequately exercising all due Convention related oversight,24 likewise with regard to the protective measures to be required going forward. 23 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Penitentiaries. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of August 22, 2007, Considering 14, and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, Considering 15. 24 Cf. with regard to “Convention related oversight" see, among others: Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 124 and 125; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 128, and Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paras. 206 to 208.