I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court: On June 17, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction the case of César Alberto Mendoza et al. v. the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”). The case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina refers to the supposed imposing of life sentences (“life imprisonment” [privación perpetua de la libertad] on César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, and “reclusion for life” [reclusión perpetua] on Claudio David Núñez), “for facts that occurred when they were children […] in application of a juvenile justice system that allowed them to be treated as adult offenders.” The case also refers to supposed “restrictions in the scope of the review by means of the remedies of cassation filed by the [presumed] victims” and to “a series of [presumed] violations that occurred while they were serving their sentences in the custody of the State.” Thus, the Commission argued that Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla were subjected to detention conditions that were “incompatible with their human dignity,” which led to the latter’s death and which has not been investigated effectively; that Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were victims of “acts of torture,” and that the latter lost his sight “without the State providing [adequate] medical care.” 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a. Petitions. Between April 9, 2002, and December 30, 2003, the presumed victims, through Fernando Peñaloza representing Ricardo David Videla Fernández, and the Ombudsperson, Stella Maris Martínez, representing Guillermo Antonio Álvarez, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal submitted several petitions regarding the application of life sentences for crimes committed while under 18 years of age. “Given the close similarity between the factual and legal arguments,” the Commission decided to joinder the said petitions in a single case file, with the exception of the case of Guillermo Antonio Álvarez, which will be processed under a separate case file. b. Admissibility report. On March 14, 2008, the Inter-American Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 26/08, 3 in which it concluded that it was competent to examine the claims presented by the petitioners concerning the presumed violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, 19 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. In addition, it indicated that the petition was admissible because it met the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. c. Merits report. Under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, on November 2, 2010, the Commission issued Report on merits No. 172/10 (hereinafter “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 172/10”), in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State: 3 Report on admissibility No. 26/08 of March 14, 2008 (file of the case before the Commission, tome VI, folios 3270 to 3285). 6