80. The official public defender of the case filed a remedy of complaint owing to the rejection of the remedy of cassation. 59 The remedy was dismissed by the Second Chamber of the National Criminal Cassation Court on June 23, 2000. 60 C.2. Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 81. The Court does not have the judgment that declared their criminal responsibility. However, the case file reveals that Claudio David Núñez 61 and Lucas Matías Mendoza 62 underwent tutelary treatment under Laws 22,278 and 10,903, the latter on the Child Welfare Agency. Following the year of observation established in the law, the Oral Juvenile Court considered that it was able to determine the punishment to be imposed. 63 82. Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were tried together by the Oral Juvenile Court on April 12, 1999. The Court declared Claudio David Núñez criminally responsible for the separate but concurrent crimes of five counts of aggravated homicide, eight counts of aggravated armed robbery, two of them attempted, illegal possession of a weapon of war, and unlawful association, and sentenced him to reclusion for life. 64 In the same judgment, Lucas Matías Mendoza was sentenced to life imprisonment 65 for his 58 Cf. Decision of Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of November 30, 1999 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4454). 59 Cf. Remedy of complaint owing to rejection of the remedy of cassation filed by Nelly Allende, official public defender of Cesar Alberto Mendoza in case No. 1,084 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4459). 60 Cf. Decision of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber, Second Chamber, of June 23, 2000, case No. 2544 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4470). 61 Claudio David Núñez was born on August 20, 1979, and attained his majority on August 20, 1997. He was detained on January 21, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment on April 12, 1999, for crimes committed between October 3, 1996, and January 9, 1997. Cf. Social report on Claudio David Núñez of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XII, folios 6769 and 6770). See, also, the Explanatory statement of the facts and law on which Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital based its verdict, corresponding to cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069 against Dante Núñez, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza of April 12, 1999 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4634). 62 Lucas Matías Mendoza was born in September 1980, and attained his majority in September 1998. He was detained on January 21, 1997, and was sentenced to life imprisonment on April 12, 1999, for crimes committed between October 3, 1996, and January 9, 1997. Cf. Social report on Lucas Matías Mendoza of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folios 6933 to 6935). See, also, the Explanatory statement of the facts and law on which Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital based its verdict, corresponding to cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069 against Dante Núñez, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza of April 12, 1999 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4634). 63 Cf. Explanatory statement of the facts and law on which Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital based its verdict, corresponding to cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069 against Dante Núñez, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza of April 12, 1999 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4634 and 4638). 64 Cf. Explanatory statement of the facts and law on which Juvenile Oral Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital based its verdict, corresponding to cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069 against Dante Núñez, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza of April 12, 1999 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4515). 65 Regarding possible differences between the punishments of life imprisonment and reclusion for life, article 44 of the Criminal Code establishes, with regard to an attempted crime, that: “the punishment that would have corresponded to the agent if the offense had been perpetrated, shall be reduced by one third to half. If the punishment would have been reclusion for life, the punishment for an attempt shall be reclusion for fifteen to twenty years. If the punishment would have been life imprisonment, the punishment for an attempt shall be ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. […].” Despite this legal distinction, both the State and the representative agree in indicating that, in the case of ‘Mendez, Nancy Noemí ref/Murder,’ on February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court considered that the punishment of reclusion for life had been implicitly annulled by Law on Execution of Sentence No. 24,660. In its judgment, the Supreme Court established that “there are not differences between the execution 29