77. In the case of young David Videla Fernández, the record reflects that he was notified of the denial of his special appeal to the National Supreme Court, which constituted exhaustion of domestic remedies, on October 16, 2003. He lodged his complaint before the Commission on December 30, 2003. Therefore, the Commission considers him to have fulfilled the requirement of timeliness in lodging the complaint. 78. In the cases of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez, while the decisions constituting exhaustion of domestic remedies were handed down in April and September of 2001, respectively, these individuals were not notified of them until April of 2002. According to the petitioners, the court decisions were only reported to the defense attorneys of the youths (a court-appointed one in the case of Claudio, and a privately hired one in the case of Lucas), who failed to notify the alleged victims. Therefore, considering that the judicial decisions were not reported to the alleged victims personally, and that their petitions were lodged with the Commission on July 1, 2002, it is concluded that these were filed in a timely fashion. 79. As regards César Alberto Mendoza, the petitioners report that in response to the decision of the Criminal Cassation Court, his court-appointed defense attorney filed a special federal appeal, which was denied on August 24, 2000. The petitioners clarify that the alleged victim communicated with the Office of the National Public Defender of the National Supreme Court several months later, requesting to be apprised of the status of his proceedings. At that time he was informed that the judgment against him was final. Since he was not notified personally of the ruling on his special federal appeal, and his court-appointed defense attorney failed to inform him of the outcome of the proceedings, the Commission considers his petition, lodged on June 17, 2002, to have been submitted in timely fashion. 80. Finally, regarding Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, it should be noted that on August 5, 2002, Courtroom II of the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province ruled that his motion for cassation was inadmissible. The petitioners assert that young Roldán Cajal was not informed of that decision until June 18, 2003 because he had lost contact with his court-appointed defense attorney. For this reason he was precluded from filing any further appeals under domestic law. Considering his date of notification to be June 18, 2003, and that the petition was filed with the Commission on July 7, 2003, it is deemed to be within the time limit. 81. The Commission notes that none of the decisions constituting the end of remedies under domestic law were reported personally to the alleged victims. Rather, notification was given to the court-appointed defense attorneys of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, and Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and the private attorneys of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Ricardo David Videla Fernández. In this regard, it bears mention that the National Supreme Court of Argentina has established that a judgment becomes final only once the defendant is personally notified. 14 14 “Dubra” Decision 327:3802; file C. 605, L.XXXIX, judgment of December 23, 2004, which concludes “that the defendant must be notified personally of a decision making his conviction final, because the possibility of seeking a new judicial ruling is the right of the defendant, and not a technical power of the defense attorney.” Also P. 2456.XL. “Peralta, Josefa Elba on recurso de queja”; which indicates “that it is the doctrine of this Supreme Court for notice of all convictions in criminal cases to be served personally on the defendant, such that any criminal verdict cannot remain final at the sole discretion of the defense attorney.”