22 against the allegedly vulnerable rights. Another essential requirement is to explain how and why the laws the complainant cites have not been applied and how that error has led to a ruling that is 58 contrary to the complainant’s interests. 88. The Mendoza Province Supreme Court had additional observations regarding the other allegations, to the effect that “(…) the complainant has not accepted the basic facts that the lower court established as proven (…); the complaint does not acknowledge matters that the court took as established facts. A corpus of established facts is essential inasmuch as the judicial oversight function that this body is called upon to perform presupposes acceptance of the facts established by judicial assertion (dictum).” It also wrote that “the goal is a re-examination of the case from the beginning, which is procedurally not 59 feasible because this special phase is exceptional and narrow in nature.” 89. The attorney who represented Ricardo David Videla Fernández filed a special federal 60 appeal with the Mendoza Province Supreme Court to challenge its decision. This appeal was denied by a ruling of June 25, 2003, when the court held that the grievances presented by the complainant were nothing more than a statement of his disagreement with the court’s previous finding on the matter of 61 compliance with the formal requirements for filing the cassation motion. The attorney representing Ricardo Videla then filed a complaint motion with the Supreme Court of the Nation, which was denied in a 62 decision delivered on October 14, 2003. D. Detention conditions at the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary 90. Detention conditions at the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary have been monitored closely by the organs of the inter-American system. The issues addressed in various pronouncements of the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission are the violence inside the prison walls, the fires, fights among inmates, poor security and infrastructure, overcrowding and unhealthy and unsanitary conditions. 91. Between 2000 and 2004 a number of mechanisms were attempted in an effort to improve the situation. Thus, in the year 2000, a petition of habeas corpus was filed and decided by the First Examining Court of Mendoza on July 15, 2000. In its decision, that Court established a number of measures that the Mendoza provincial government was to take to relieve the overcrowding and improve the poor hygienic conditions and the health of the inmate population. Thereafter, on November 28, 2002, 63 the Eighth Court of the First Judicial Circuit upheld another petition of habeas corpus. 92. Despite these measures and the court orders issued, the situation continued to deteriorate, whereupon the Inter-American Commission decided to request provisional measures of the Inter-American Court. The provisional measures have been in force since November 22, 2004. In the matter of the Mendoza provincial prisons, the Argentine State itself has acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. 58 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Ruling of the Mendoza Supreme Court dated April 24, 2003, Case No. 76,063. 59 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Ruling of the Mendoza Supreme Court dated April 24, 2003, Case No. 76,063. 60 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Special federal appeal filed by attorney Fernando Gastón Peñaloza on May 22, 2003, Case No. 76,063. 61 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Ruling of the Mendoza Supreme Court dated June 25, 2003, Case No. 76,063. 62 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Ruling of the Mendoza Supreme Court, dated October 14, 2003, Case No. 109 et al. 63 I/A Court H.R., Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2004.