of attaining parole. This ruling was the subject of a motion based on improper denial of an appeal before the National Criminal Cassation Court. That Court ruled on the Constitutional appeals on April 19, 2000, declaring that the sentence given to young Núñez was consistent with the Constitution and the laws. In response to the rulings of the Criminal Cassation Court, the court-appointed defense attorney of Claudio David Núñez filed a special federal appeal, which was denied on August 3, 2000. Finally, the alleged victim filed two motions based on improper denial of an appeal before the National Supreme Court, which were denied in decisions handed down on August 23 and September 4, 2001; the first because it was submitted after the statutory time limit, and the second because it did not refute each and every one of the arguments of the order denying the special appeal. 51. The petitioners clarify Claudio David Núñez did not receive notification of the final decision until April of 2002. The judicial decision was only reported to his defense attorney, who failed to inform the alleged victim. Lucas Matías Mendoza 52. This alleged victim was put on trial for the following crimes committed between October 3, 1996 and January 9, 1997: armed robberies in private homes; 2 aggravated homicides and injury to several persons. He was 16 years of age at the time. As a result, on April 12, 1999, pursuant to law 22,278, he was sentenced to life in prison. 53. His private defense attorney filed a motion for cassation against the verdict. Added to this was a motion for cassation and a Constitutional appeal filed by the Office of the Public Defender for Minors and Legally Disqualified Persons. The motions for cassation were denied by the Oral Juvenile Court based on the argument that they sought a review of the facts and the evidence. The Public Defender for Minors and Legally Disqualified Persons and the private attorney of Lucas Matías Mendoza then filed recursos de queja, or motions based on improper denial of the cassation motion, which were heard in Courtroom II of the National Criminal Cassation Court along with the Constitutional appeal. This Court ruled that the sentence of life imprisonment bestowed on young Mendoza was legitimate, in view of precedents that exist in the jurisprudence regarding the legality and Constitutionality of said punishment. 54. In response to these decisions by the Criminal Cassation Court, young Mendoza’s private defense attorney filed a special federal appeal with the National Supreme Court, which was denied on April 3, 2001 for lack of separate grounds. 55. The petitioners clarify that Lucas Matías Mendoza was not notified of the final decision in the domestic system until April of 2002. Notice of the judicial decision was only given to his attorney, who failed to inform the alleged victim. 56. In addition, at the hearing held on October 17, 2005 during the 123 rd regular period of sessions of the IACHR, petitioner Stella Maris Martínez reported that young Lucas Matías Mendoza suffered a blow to his left eye while he was incarcerated at the juvenile institute, which caused his retina to be detached. Because of inadequate medical treatment, he has now had a permanent loss of vision. Additionally, due to congenital toxoplasmosis, he has suffered a progressive loss of vision in the right eye and is now 100% visually impaired. During the hearing and later in a written message