192. In this case, the Court considers that Lucas Matías Mendoza should have enjoyed the increased protection to which he was entitled based on his condition as a minor deprived of liberty. However, the case file reveals that the minor Mendoza was first diagnosed for the “pelotazo,” to his left eye on August 18, 1998; in other words, 18 days after he had received the blow (supra para. 98). Lucas Matías Mendoza was examined again one year later, on August 31, 1999, when he had been sentenced and transferred to the “Federal Complex for Young Adults (U.24).” At that time, the doctor who examined him recommended “extreme care as regards the physical activity of the inmate, and his accommodation, avoiding insofar as possible the risk of incidents that could exacerbate his already limited vision” (supra para. 98). However, it was not until April 30, 2003, almost four years later, that Lucas Matías Mendoza was examined again (supra para. 99). In addition, the case file shows that he was re-examined in October 2005; that is, two and half years later, and again a year and nine months later, in July 2007 (supra paras. 99 and 100). On the last occasion, it was repeated that Lucas Matías Mendoza would require periodic monitoring (supra para. 100). Lastly, the Court observes that he was also examined on May 6, 2011, in other words, four years later, and that it was based on the resulting report that National Sentencing Court No. 2 ordered his house arrest in order to guarantee his right to health. This report recommended, among other matters, the provision of “glasses with organic lenses” for the inmate’s “sole functional eye”; namely, his right eye (supra para. 101). 193. Accordingly, the Court underscores that, over the course of 13 years, Lucas Matías Mendoza was only examined by a doctor in relation to his eye problems on six occasions, with periods of from one to four years between each examination. The State did not indicate whether these intervals had any medical explanation. Rather, the Court observes that, with the passing of time, Lucas Matías Mendoza’s sight degenerated to the point that, today, he has almost no vision. Therefore, the Court considers that the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct periodic and regular examinations in order to safeguard the health of the inmate, despite the recommendations made by the doctors who examined him (supra paras. 98 to 100). Moreover, there is no evidence in the case file that the State took any action to address the particular health needs of the minor Mendoza, recommended by the doctors who attended him, up until 2011, when national Judge Marcelo Peluzzi ordered his house arrest (supra para. 102). 194. It is worth noting that, in the proceedings before this Court, Lucas Matías Mendoza testified before notary public regarding his sight problems, indicating that he “stopped being able to see” after the blow he suffered and that, “from then on, everything was more difficult.” Thus, the presumed victim stated: “I cannot do other things like everyone else. It is hard for me to shower; I bump into people in the dark; I cannot defend myself. Everything is much harder for me […]. This happened to me at both the Agote Institution and in the prison units, when I turned 18 years old. Here, everything is worse. It is a mixture of insecurity, fear of everything, and loneliness.” 195. Based on the above (supra paras. 184 to 194), the Court considers that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza, owing to the absence of adequate medical care during the time he was detained in the Dr. Luis Agote Juvenile Institution and in various federal detention centers between 1998 and 2011. C. Torture suffered by Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez C.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 65