35 recriminations and the punishment imposed must be less severe than it would have been had an adult 124 committed the same crime. 151. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has written that: Children differ from adults in their physical and psychological development, and their emotional and educational needs. Such differences constitute the basis for the lesser culpability of children in conflict with the law. These and other differences are the reasons for a separate juvenile justice 125 system and require a different treatment for children. [Emphasis added]. 152. As for the nature and legal consequences of minors’ diminished culpability, the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina wrote the following in its Maldonado ruling, which is particularly relevant to the analysis of the present case: Nevertheless, it is an undisputed existential fact that they [children and adolescents] do not have the same degree of emotional maturity that should be expected and demanded in an adult. This is borne out in the everyday routine experiences of family and school life, where children are corrected for conduct that would be patently pathological in adults. All the psychology of growth and development confirms this one elementary observation. The demonstrable immaturity unquestionably necessitates that the penalty a child or adolescent must pay for his/her culpability cannot be as stiff as would be routinely demanded of an adult. From this standpoint, the child’s culpability for the act is a lesser culpability than the adult’s, all because of the child’s immature emotional personality. (…) [I]n a criminal law system that is compatible with the Constitution and its concept of person, one cannot escape the fact that culpability will determine punishment; in the particular case of a child’s culpability, any diminishment of culpability and therefore punishment will be because of his/her universally recognized emotional and affective immaturity (…) In such circumstances, the only solution is to recognize that the State’s punitive reaction must be less than it would be, all other 126 things being equal, if the crime had been committed by an adult. . 153. In its Advisory Opinion OC-17, the Inter-American Court wrote that the “[c]haracteristics of State intervention in the case of minors who are offenders must be reflected in the composition and 127 functioning of these [juvenile] courts, as well as in the nature of the measures they can adopt” (underlining added). The Court also wrote that “the need to adopt these measures or care originates from 128 the specific situation of children, taking into account their weakness, immaturity or inexperience.” 154. The Commission observes that international human rights law does not at the present time flatly prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on a minor under the age of 18. Under Article 37(a) of 124 See, mutatis mutandis. IACHR, Report No. 62/02, Case 12.285, Merits, Michael Domingues (United States), October 22, 2002, para. 80. 125 Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 10 (2007) Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, para. 10. The United States Supreme Court issued a recent decision in the case of Graham v. Florida (decision of May 17, 2010) where it held that inasmuch as juvenile offenders have diminished culpability, they ought not to receive the harshest sentences. When compared with adults, juveniles are immature and have a less developed sense of responsibility; they are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and external pressures, including peer pressure. The Supreme Court also considered that the advancements in psychology and in the study of brain functions continue to produce evidence of fundamental differences between the juvenile the adult brains. For example, those parts of the brain that control behavior are still developing well into late adolescence. 126 Brief from the petitioners received on July 1, 2007. Attachment 7. Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation. Maldonado, Daniel Enrique et al., ruling of December 7, 2005. 127 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 137(11). 128 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 60.