91. On December 19, 2002, his private defense counsel filed remedies of cassation against six of the joindered proceedings. 93 On April 24, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Mendoza rejected the remedies of cassation. 94 D. Judicial decisions in Argentina following the issue of Merits Report No. 172/10 of the Inter-American Commission and the submission of the case to the InterAmerican Court D.1. Decision of the Second Chamber of the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice of March 9, 2012, setting aside the conviction of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal 92. On March 29, 2011, after the Inter-American Commission had issued Merits Report No. 172/10 in this case, the official Public Defender filed, on behalf of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, an appeal for review of the judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment and the decision declaring him a repeat offender. 95 On September 22, 2011, the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice decided to admit the appeal in order to review the judgment convicting Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal. 96 On March 9, 2012 the Second Chamber of the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice decided to set aside the judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment. Based on Merits Report 172/10 of the Inter-American Commission, that court decided to impose 15 years’ imprisonment on Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal. 97 According to information from the parties, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal’s release could not be secured, because he was deprived of liberty for supposedly having perpetrated another offense. D.2. Decision of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012, annulling the sentences of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 93. On April 8, 2011, based on the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission in Merits Report 172/10, Lucas Matías Mendoza, “in forma pauperis,” filed a brief requesting the review of the judgment of the Oral Juvenile Court of April 12, 1999, that sentenced him to reclusion for life (supra para. 82). 98 Subsequently, the official Public Defender went before that court in order to substantiate the appeal. 99 93 Cf. Remedy of cassation filed by Fernando Gastón Peñaloza, defense counsel of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, in cases Nos. 109/02, 110/02, 117/02, 121/02, 112/02 and 116/02, of December 19, 2002 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folios 5029, 5047, 5064, 5003, 5021 and 5012). 94 Cf. Decision of the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice of April 24, 2003, in case No. 76063 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome IX, folio 5080). 95 Cf. Appeal for review filed by María del Carmen Riste, head of the Third Juvenile Criminal Defenders’ Office of March 28, 2011, in case No. 005/00 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 7013). 96 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza of September 22, 2011, in case No. 102,319 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 7027). 97 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza of March 9, 2012, in case No. 102,319 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7897). 98 Cf. Appeal for review filed in forma pauperis by Lucas Matías Mendoza of April 8, 2011 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7940). 99 Cf. Appeal for review filed by Graciela Galván, defender ad hoc of Lucas Matías Mendoza in case No. 14,087 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7945). It should be explained that the defense counsel committed the material error of coming forward in representation of Cesar Alberto Mendoza when, in fact, the appeal for review was filed with regard to Lucas Matías Mendoza. Consequently, she submitted a clarification in this regard (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7954). 33