release, is incompatible with the American Convention. In particular, that legal framework is incompatible with the special obligations of protection and with the social readaptation function of the penalty, established in Articles 19 and 5(6) of the American Convention, interpreted in light of the corpus juris on the rights of children and adolescents. In this way, the instant case will enable the Court to apply some of the general principles on juvenile criminal justice set forth in Advisory Opinion 17 and, accordingly, to develop solid case-law on the issue. Second, the limitations with respect to review by means of the motion for cassation in the instant case occurred due to the persistence of a legal framework and judicial practice that is still incompatible with the scope and content of the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. The apparent tension between the principles of accusatory criminal procedure system and the scope of the right to a broad review continues to be a current issue in Argentina and in other countries of the region, and which continues generating restrictions on the scope of the right to appeal. Finally, the violation of the right to life with respect to Ricardo David Videla Fernández occurred, among other omissions, due to the lack of adequate care for the mental health situation that afflicted him. Accordingly, the instant case will enable the Inter-American Court to develop relevant standards on the state’s obligations with respect to the mental health of persons under its custody in its special position as guarantor of their life and personal integrity. Mindful of the foregoing, and in the understanding that the existence of legal frameworks incompatible with the American Convention, as well as the development of case-law on novel issues in the inter-American system, are issues that significantly affect the inter-American public order of human rights as per Article 35(1)(f) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission takes the opportunity to offer the following expert witnesses: 1. Expert whose name will be provided as soon as possible, who will testify as to international human rights standards in the area of juvenile criminal justice, including the criteria of special nature of the applicable framework in relation to both substantive and procedural aspects, the application of the deprivation of liberty as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time, the inappropriateness of applying the penalty of perpetual imprisonment to adolescents, with disproportionate times before being able to be released, among other aspects. In addition, the expert will analyze Argentina’s legal framework in relation to juvenile criminal justice in light of those standards. 2. Alberto Bovino, who will testify on the scope of the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, particularly in relation to the a priori exclusion of the possibility of review of issues of fact or evidence due to the apparent tension between the principles