157. The foregoing reveals that Law 22,278 contains provisions that regulate, among other aspects, the age for attributing responsibility to persons under 18 years of age, the measures that the judge may adopt before and after determining criminal responsibility, and the possibility of imposing a criminal sanction following tutelary treatment, the duration of which cannot be less than one year. In addition, the offenses and the punishments are established in a separate instrument; namely, the National Criminal Code, which applies also to adults who have committed an offense. Neither Law 22,278 nor the national Criminal Code contain provisions on how the criminal sanctions established in this Code for adults are applied to minors under 18 years of age. 158. With regard to this specific case, the Court will now refer to the grounds for the guilty verdicts handed down in the jurisdiction of the province of Mendoza against Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández, and in Buenos Aires against César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, in order to assess whether the principles applicable to the imposing of the punishment were complied with, particularly those relating to the deprivation of liberty of children. 159. In this Judgment, it has already been mentioned that, on March 8, 2002, the Mendoza Juvenile Criminal Court sentenced Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal to life imprisonment (supra para. 86). On November 5, 2002, the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Mendoza Judiciary decided to consolidate the previous sentences, confirming the life sentence that had been imposed and, also, declaring Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal a repeat offender (supra paras. 86 and 88). Additionally, on November 28, 2002, the Mendoza Juvenile Criminal Court declared the criminal responsibility of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and sentenced him to life imprisonment (supra para. 90). The grounds for this sentence were set out in a decision of December 5, 2002. Both judgments established that the reduction of the punishment established in paragraph 2 of article 4 of Law 22,278 was not applicable, and that it was fair and equitable to impose life sentences on the youths Roldán Cajal and Videla Fernández, having “weighed” their age at the time they committed the unlawful acts. 229 160. Meanwhile, on April 12, 1999, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were prosecuted together by Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital. The judgment sentenced the youth Núñez to reclusion for life, and the youth Mendoza to life imprisonment (supra para. 82). 230 Also, on October 28, 1999, Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital sentenced César Alberto Mendoza to life imprisonment (supra para. 78). 231 229 The judgment handed down against Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal indicated that: “it is necessary to apply a sanction to the defendant, [who] has not earned the reduction of the punishment established at the end of the second paragraph of art. 4 of Law No. 22,278/22,803. Consequently, […] this Juvenile Criminal Court considers it just and fair to apply the punishment of [life imprisonment], having weighed the age of the offender at the time the acts were committed and the adaptation to the prison regime imposed.” Cf. Decision of the Mendoza Juvenile Criminal Court, First Judicial District, of March 8, 2002, in case No. 005/00 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6987). Meanwhile, the judgment against Ricardo David Videla Fernández indicated that: “it is necessary to apply a sanction to the defendant, [who] has not earned the reduction of the punishment established at the end of the second paragraph of art. 4 of Law No. 22,278/22,803,” and that “[the] Juvenile Criminal Court considers it just and fair to apply the punishment of [life imprisonment], having weighed in his favor his age at the time the acts for which he has been declared criminally responsible were committed.” Cf. Explanatory statement on the factual and legal grounds of the verdict of the Mendoza Juvenile Criminal Court, First Judicial District, of December 5, 2002, in cases Nos. 109/110/111/112/113/116/117/120/121 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folios 4995 and 4996). 230 Regarding Claudio David Núñez, his sentence mentions that: “[t]hese parameters for graduating the punishment lead to finding it just to impose the sentence of reclusion for life.” Also, regarding Lucas Matías Mendoza, the sentence indicates that: “he is recorded as having committed two counts of aggravated murder, eight armed robberies, one of them attempted, unlawful association, and possession of a weapon of war, which added to the fact that he can be easily influenced, his lack of character and other environmental circumstances, together with his status as a minor when committing the said crimes, lead to imposing the sentence of life imprisonment.” Cf. Explanatory statement of the factual and legal grounds on which Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of 55