3 petitioners were further advised that under Article 38(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure) they had two months in which to submit any additional observations they might have regarding the merits. Under Article 38(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. Accordingly, it asked that the parties submit their response to the Commission’s offer as soon as possible. 9. The petitioners submitted their observations on the merits on May 27, 2008. That information was conveyed to the State, which was asked to submit its observations within two months, in keeping with Article 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The State replied on August 5, 2008, requesting an extension. On October 14 and December 5 and 23, 2008, the petitioners submitted additional documents. th 10. A hearing was held on the merits on March 24, 2009, during the Commission’s 134 regular session. At that hearing, the State asserted that it would not be presenting any arguments on the merits. On March 31, April 15, June 29 and July 21, 2009, the petitioners submitted additional information. All those communications were forwarded to the State. 11. By notes of April 28 and October 21, 2009, the State reiterated its decision not to present arguments on the merits of the case relating to the sentence of life imprisonment imposed and the alleged violation of the right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. However, the State did provide information related to the death of Ricardo Videla Fernández and the injuries sustained by Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza. B. Request seeking precautionary measures 12. On January 2, 2008, the Commission received a request seeking precautionary measures, filed by the National Public Defender’s Office. The request was filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and César Alberto Mendoza, alleging that the first two had been victims of abuse in the Federal Penitentiary Complex No. 1. The Public Defender’s Office requested, inter alia, that the proposed beneficiaries be immediately transferred to the Federal Penitentiary Complex No. 4: Santa Rosa Penal Colony. 13. On January 8, 2008, the Commission requested information from the State, giving it 7 days in which to reply. The State sent its response to the Commission on January 22, 2008. On February 15, 2009, the petitioners supplied additional information. The State forwarded new information on March 28, 2008. The petitioners, for their part, filed briefs containing additional information on May 27 and 29, 2008. The State, for its part, supplied information on June 30 and again on August 15, 2008; the petitioners provided further information on August 25, 2008. 14. During the first months while the request seeking precautionary measures was being processed, the State ordered that the proposed beneficiaries be transferred to other penal institutions; thereafter, no reports were received alleging further assaults upon them. On October 6, 2008, the IACHR requested additional information from the petitioners, who replied on October 14, 2008. This communication was forwarded to the State, which replied via notes dated December 5, 2008 and January 27, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the IACHR informed the parties that “from the information received regarding the situation, there does not appear to be any basis to resort to precautionary measures.” III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 15. The petitioners’ basic complaint has to do with the life sentences given to persons who were alleged to have committed crimes when they were under the age of 18, i.e., when they were still classified as children under international law. The arguments made by the petitioners with regard to the basic facts are the same for all five alleged victims and are summarized below: