10 of matters which may involve the responsibility of the country within the international scope, as that branch has been constitutionally granted the exercise of the foreign affairs of the Nation. 14) That among those hypotheses we find this case, where the National Executive Power –as custodian of the interests of the National State- shall act for an interest of its own regarding the consequences that the fulfillment or the non-fulfillment of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the facts denounced may entail. It is the National Executive Power the one with passive legal standing in the claim, and not the Province of Mendoza. The matter has exceeded the domestic scope of the State, and that prevents the above mentioned provincial State from being one of the bearers of the legal relationship on which the above mentioned claims are based, regardless of their fundament […] The provincial State can not be granted the capacity to contradict the specific matter the proceeding shall be about […] 15) That even the tenor of the decisions and communications of the international bodies which take part in the claims that give rise to this proceedings -attached hereto- reveal that the legal relationship invoked, and on which basis it is sought to enforce the fulfillment of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the Commission and by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, directly links the claimants to the National State and not to the Province Mendoza. 16) That for that matter it is proper to emphasize that the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights itself stated -when analyzing the admissibility of the provisional measures requested, the purpose of which is to alter the denounced situation of fact - that “...it is aware that the relief and the improvement of the situation of the penitentiaries of Mendoza constitutes a short, medium and long-term process, which requires a set of actions of administrative, judicial and eventually legislative nature by the federal and provincial authorities so as to correct the imprisonment and detention conditions. However, before this Court’s order to adopt provisional measures, the purpose of which is the protection of the life and the integrity of the inmates detained in those penitentiaries and of the people within the facilities, the State can not allege domestic law grounds to refrain from taking firm, concrete and effective courses of action so as to fulfill the ordered measures to prevent any additional deaths. Neither can the State allege the lack of coordination between the federal and the provincial authorities to avoid the deaths and acts of violence which have continued to exist during their enforcement. Regardless of the unitary of federal structure of a State Party to the Convention, before the international jurisdiction it is the State as such the one which appears before the bodies which supervise that treaty, and it is the State the only one obliged to adopt the measures. The lack of adoption of the provisional measures on the part of the State compromises its international liability" (judgment of March 30, 2006, Considering Clause No. 11, page 98). It is not pointless to state that in that same sense was the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of "Garrido and Baigorria vs. Argentina", judgment of August 27, 1998; and in Advisory Opinion Number 16 of October 1, 1999, on "the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Context of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law.”