5 (l) violation of articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(6), 7(3) and 19 of the American Convention, read in combination with articles 3, 37(a), 37(b), 40(1), and 40(4) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The petitioners supplied a list of the next of kin and persons who were also victims as a result of the sentences imposed on the alleged victims. In the case of César Alberto Mendoza: his mother, Isolina del Carmen Herrera, his partner between 1999 and August 2007, Romina Beatriz Muñoz, and their children, Isolina Aylen Muñoz, Sanira Yamile Muñoz and Santíno Gianfranco Muñoz; his brothers and sisters: María del Carmen Mendoza, Roberto Cristian Mendoza, Dora Noemí Mendoza and Juan Francisco Mendoza; and his current partner, Gabriela Angela Videla. In the case of Claudio David Núñez: his mother, Ana María del Valle Britos, his partner Jorgelina Amalia Díaz and their daughter Saída Luján Díaz; his siblings Yolanda Elizabeth, Emely de los Angeles, María Silvina and Dante, and his stepfather Pablo Castaño. In the case of Lucas Matías Mendoza: his grandmother, Elba Mercedes Pajón, his mother Marta Graciela Olguín, his partner since 2006, Romina Vanessa Vilte, their son Lautaro Lucas Vilte and Romina’s children, Junior González Neumen, Jazmín Adriadna Martínez and Emmanuel Martínez; Lucas’ siblings: Omar Maximiliano Mendoza, Paola Elizabeth Mendoza, Verónica Albana Mendoza and Diana Salomé Olguín. In the case of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal: his partner Alejandra Garay, his mother Florinda Rosa Cajal and her partner Juan Caruso; his eleven siblings: Evelyn Janet Caruso Cajal, Juan Ezequiel Caruso Cajal, Cinthia Carolina Roldán, María de Lourden Roldán, Rosa Mabel Roldán, Albino Abad Roldán, Nancy Amalia Roldán, Carlos Roldán, Walter Roldán and Yohana Elizabeth Roldán. In the case of Ricardo David Videla Fernández: his parents Ricardo Roberto Videla and Stella Maris Fernández, and his siblings: Juan Gabriel Videla, Marilín Estefanía Videla, Esteban Luis Videla, and Roberto Damián Videla. 16. The petitioners also assert that the cassation motions filed to challenge the convictions were denied on procedural grounds. In those cases in which the courts agreed to hear the motions or appeals filed, the courts simply confirmed the lower court rulings, stating that the lower court rulings had been delivered in accordance with domestic law and international treaties with the rank of constitutional law. The petitioners contend that the alleged victims were denied effective enjoyment of the right to have their convictions reviewed by a higher court. The arguments made the petitioners on this point can be summarized as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) The respective defense counsels for the alleged victims filed cassation motions seeking review of the facts in dispute, the evidence and the sentences imposed. However, the courts with jurisdiction did not conduct a full review and systematically denied the cassation motions on the grounds that they were seeking to have matters of fact and of evidence reviewed, functions that were the province of the court a quo. Under the laws of the Province of Mendoza and of the autonomous city of Buenos Aires, cassation motions have a narrowly-defined scope, despite the fact that in the well-known 2005 Casal ruling, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ordered the courts to change the scope traditionally assigned to this type of motion to bring it in line with standards set by Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the case of Mendoza Province, the Code of Criminal Procedure lists cassation as an extraordinary appeal, thereby disallowing the possibility of a higher court’s full review of a final judgment. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners conclude that the denial of the cassation motions filed to challenge the sentences of life imprisonment were in violation of articles 2, 8(2)(h), 19 and 25 of the American Convention, read in combination with Article 40(2)(b)(v) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 17. For each alleged victim, the petitioners give a detailed account of the criminal proceedings that led to the sentence of life imprisonment. The details will be examined in the section of this report that concerns proven facts and will be based on the evidence in the case record.