33. The petitioners state that the Criminal Procedures Code of Mendoza stipulates cassation within the special remedies, thus prohibiting the possibility for a final decision to be reviewed broadly by a higher court. They allege that there is nothing in either local or national legislation to allow a regular appeal encompassing a broad review of the facts, criminal liability, and sentence related to a final judicial decision. 34. The petitioners stress that there is no difference between the sentences being served by the alleged victims—in terms of length of time and means of serving it—and a sentence imposed on someone who had committed the crimes as an adult. 35. The petitioners add that Argentina has not adjusted its domestic legislation, despite the fact that it signed the American Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. They add that this failure to adjust internal legislation allows judges to continue to hand down sentences of life imprisonment, and for prosecutors to continue to seek such sentences, making Argentina the only country in Latin America to sentence persons who commit crimes while under the age of 18 to life in prison. 36. They indicate that the legal system for children and adolescents is regulated by national law 22,278 (Criminal Juvenile Justice System), passed on August 20, 1980 during the last military dictatorship, and modified by law 22,803. This legislation allows persons between the ages of 16 and 18 years of age to receive the same sentences as adults. It establishes no limit on the length of sentence. 37. The petitioners add that the judges imposed the most restrictive sentence possible under Argentine criminal legislation on the alleged victims. It is argued that Article 4 of law 22,278 says that this sentence can only be imposed on people who are between the ages of 16 and 18 years when committing the crime if: 1) Their criminal liability--and civil if any—had been previously established, according to procedural rules, 2) They have reached 18 years of age, 3) They have been subject to a period of guardianship treatment for at least one year, which could be extended if necessary until reaching the age of majority. 38. The petitioners clarify that the legal provision itself states that if these requirements are met, the sanction will be applied only in cases where it is necessary, and that even in those cases, the sentence may be reduced to that of an attempt to commit a crime. They allege that despite the foregoing, the judges determined to impose life imprisonment on the youth without taking into account the principles of “best interests of the child” and “minimal intervention,” and without interpreting the legislation in force in light of the principles emanating from international instruments for the protection of human rights. 39. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that while Argentine legislation contemplates the possibility of parole, it can only be considered—pending satisfaction of several requirements—after serving 20 years of a life sentence. 5 Therefore, the alleged victims are condemned to spending at least part of their adolescence, young adulthood, and 5 The Commission notes that as amended, Article 13 of the National Criminal Procedure Code indicates that the time period is currently 35 years.