damages awarded.” Furthermore, they insisted that “the Juvenile Defender’s Office was the institution vested with the necessary authority and adequate knowledge to try to question the form of payment established in the case at hand.” They also indicated that “Argentine legislation imposed and still imposes the intervention of the [Juvenile Defender’s Office] under penalty of nullity”. They added that the defender “in his capacity as the representative of disabled persons, he could have taken the necessary steps to [obtain] without delay the [health] treatments recommended and to ensure that a disability pension was granted.” 236. The State argued that “the lack of intervention of the Juvenile Defender’s Office in cases like the one of young Furlan, in which his parents acted on his behalf in court, did not affect the exercise of [his] rights and guarantees”. It indicated that “there is no article in the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure [...] which stipulates that judges are under the obligation or duty to require the intervention of the Juvenile Defender’s Office.” To this end, it mentioned that “the entire procedural activity, including the request for the opinion and intervention of the Juvenile Defender’s Office, is at the exclusive request of the interested party.” It further alleged that “the intervention of the Office for the Protection of Minors [Ministerio de Menores] does not and cannot replace the representation that the minor's representative must necessarily have.” It indicated that “upon reaching legal age, the inability to exercise legal rights […] is terminated as a matter of law […] and therefore the necessary representation of the parents and the common representation of the Office for the Protection of Minors comes to an end.” In addition, it indicated that “the nullity stemming from the Juvenile Defender's lack of intervention in a proceeding like the one involving young Furlan is of a relative nature given that [...] it can be remedied by express or implied confirmation,” and therefore “upon ratification of the proceedings by young Furlan once he reached legal age, the nullity is unenforceable”. Considerations of the Court 237. The Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives in this case argued that the lack of participation of the Juvenile Defender’s Office would have had a direct impact on the manner in which the proceeding was conducted. In this regard, the Court notes that the legal concept of the “Juvenile Defender’s Office” is embodied in Article 59 of the Argentine Civil Code, which establishes that “apart from the necessary representatives, minors are jointly represented by the Juvenile Defender’s Office which shall be empowered in all types of proceedings, judicial or extrajudicial, in contentious and noncontentious proceedings, in which minors are defendants or respondents, or in proceedings concerning their property, under penalty of nullity of any act or proceeding which would be conducted without the minor’s participation.” Said legal concept is governed by Law 24.946, which establishes the duties and powers of “public defenders of minors and persons with 379 disabilities.” 238. The Court emphasizes that, in fact, the “juvenile defender” has a wide range of 380 powers which, among other things, allow the him or her to: i) intervene and file, in 379 Article 54 of Law 24.946 (General Law of the Office of the Attorney General). Cf. Article 55, Law 24.946/1998 (file of appendices to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume VII, page 3155). 380 Article 54 of Law 24.946 (General Law of the Office of the Attorney General) states the following: Public Defenders of Minors and Persons with Disabilities shall have the following duties and powers, in all instances and spheres where their intervention is required: a) to intervene, under the terms of Article 59 of the Civil Code, in any judicial or extrajudicial proceeding affecting the person or property of minors or persons with disabilities and file, in their defense, autonomously or together with their representatives, the corresponding actions or remedies; b) to guarantee the necessary intervention of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, in any judicial matter brought before 75