166. Based on the above, and pursuant to Article 5(6) of the American Convention, the Court considers that, owing to their characteristics, life imprisonment and reclusion for life do not achieve the objective of the social reintegration of juveniles. Rather, this type of sentence entails the maximum exclusion of the child from society, so that it functions in a purely retributive sense, because the expectations of re-socialization are annulled to their highest degree. Therefore, such sentences are not proportionate to the objective of the criminal sanction of children. 167. Based on the foregoing (supra paras. 134 to 166), the Court finds that the State violated the right recognized in Article 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández, by imposing on them sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively. IX THE RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 168. In this Chapter, the Court will examine whether the imposing of life sentences on the juveniles César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the terms of the American Convention. It will also analyze the presumed violations of the human rights of Lucas Matías Mendoza owing to the supposed lack of medical care he suffered while in detention. Lastly, the Court will refer to the presumed acts of torture suffered by Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez during the time they were detained at Ezeiza Federal Prison Complex I. A. Life imprisonment and reclusion for life as cruel and inhuman treatment A.1 Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 169. The Commission argued that the “arbitrariness and violations, both procedural and substantive [that co-existed in this case,] meant that the sentences imposed on the [presumed] victims resulted in inhuman treatment […].” Therefore, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the State had violated Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez. 170. The representative argued that the sentencing to life imprisonment of the presumed victims for offenses committed as children constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Therefore, she considered that Argentina had violated, among others, the rights recognized in Articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 19 of the American Convention to their detriment. 171. The State indicated that there were “certain inconsistencies in the argument that the presumed victims had been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment owing to the life sentences imposed on them,” because “international law does not prohibit the application of such sanctions.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 58