adulthood in maximum security prisons. This places at risk their physical and moral integrity, and limits their personal growth. 40. The petitioners indicate that while serving their sentences, the alleged victims have been transferred repeatedly from one detention center to another. They have received minimal formal education and virtually no vocational training that might enhance their chances of entering the labor market or their general rehabilitation. 41. The petitioners allege that during the negotiations seeking to settle this complaint, the State presented several draft bills which would place limits on prison sentences for persons under 18 years of age. However, no progress has been made in this regard because none of the bills has been voted on in the legislature. 42. In the petitioners’ last message, received in the IACHR on January 2, 2008, they refer to a decision in Courtroom III of the National Criminal Cassation Court which declared Article 1 of law 22,278 to be unconstitutional. 6 The petitioners stress that in the view of that Court, “[…] in practice there is a very wide margin of discretion regarding measures to be adopted, and the criteria of criminal law are applied to the accused when the decision is based on aspects related to the personality of the minor child.” The petitioners note that in operative paragraph V the Cassation Court exhorted the Legislative Branch to “bring the juvenile criminal justice legislation in line with international standards.”7 43. The petitioners provided the Commission with the following information with regard to each of the young men involved: César Alberto Mendoza 44. This alleged victim was tried for the following crimes committed July 27 and 28, 1996: theft of 3 vehicles; 4 armed robberies; 2 aggravated homicides and injury to several individuals. At the time he was 17 years and 10 months of age. 45. On October 28, 1999, according to the provisions of law 22,278, he was sentenced to life in prison by Oral Juvenile Court No. 1 of the autonomous city of Buenos Aires. The petitioners state that Mendoza’s court-appointed defense attorney filed a motion for cassation of the verdict and an appeal on the grounds that the sentence was 6 Article 1 of law 22,278 “Juvenile Criminal Justice System” establishes: A minor under the age of 16 years is not punishable. Nor is a minor under the age of 18 years punishable with regard to private crimes or crimes that carry a sentence of deprivation of liberty not to exceed two years, with a fine, or with removal of civil rights. If there are charges against any such person, the judicial authorities shall dispose the case provisionally, proceed to verify the crime, directly take cognizance of the minor, his or her parents, or guardian and order any necessary reports and expert testimony to determine the status of the individual’s personality, family, and environmental conditions. If necessary, the minor may be placed in an appropriate location during the time required for the study. If the studies conducted show the minor to be abandoned, lacking assistance, and in material or moral danger, or presenting behavioral problems, the judge may dispose of the matter permanently through a well-founded court order, after a hearing the with parents or guardian. 7 A copy of the Cassation Court’s decision is in the Commission’s file. The relevant segment reads: “Resolves ... V) To exhort the Legislative Branch to bring the juvenile criminal justice legislation in line with the new constitutional standards and establish a comprehensive system that is coordinated with law 26,061 “Comprehensive Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents” within a time period not to exceed one (1) year.