62. Based on all of the foregoing, the petitioners assert that the State perpetrated violations of Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 19 (rights of the child), pursuant to Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt domestic legal measures) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 37(a)(b) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter “CRC”), and 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, against the following youths: César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández. 2. The State 63. The State has not responded directly to the allegations of fact presented by the petitioners, nor has it disputed the admissibility of the petition reviewed herein. 64. In a message dated June 30, 2004, the State told the Commission of its willingness to enter into a dialogue with the petitioners aimed at exploring the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement to this matter. Furthermore, in its communication dated September 9, 2005, the State informed the IACHR that it was working on a draft bill which would set a limit for sentences depriving minors of their liberty. This was reiterated in its message dated May 2, 2006 in which the State also reported that it was taking steps before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights recommending the commutation of the sentence of Lucas Matías Mendoza, in light of his visual disability. In a note dated August 23, 2007, the State reiterated its willingness to continue to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement in this case. 65. The State remitted note OEA 31 of January 22, 2008 in response to the Commission’s requests for information regarding the alleged mistreatment of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza in December of 2007 by penitentiary personnel. In response, the State submitted its account of the events according to staff at Federal Penitentiary Complex I of Ezeiza, asserting that the lesions Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez suffered were the results of a squabble among the inmates. The State also told the Commission that the alleged victims had not sought any judicial remedy for the events that occurred in December of 2007. IV. ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis y ratione loci 66. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The alleged victims named in the petition are individuals whose rights in the American Convention the State of Argentina has undertaken to respect and ensure. As for the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to review the petition. 67. The Commission has competence ratione loci to review the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention to have occurred within the territory of a State Party to it. The Commission has competence ratione temporis since