life imprisonment.” 250 Meanwhile, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal stated that “[t]he sentence to life imprisonment had a strong impact on” him, because he had “been […] in prison long enough to understand what each day of life in prison meant.” He indicated that “those sentenced to life imprisonment [were] scum; they [were] condemned to the worst suffering.” 251 In the case of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, the consequences of a life sentence were evident because, apparently, it led him to end his life, and “[h]is life sentence gave rise to a different situation that was more intense than the ordinary levels of punishment.” 252 183. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the disproportionality of the sentences imposed on César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández is evident, and the extreme psychological impact produced by the considerations indicated previously (supra paras. 169 to 182), constituted cruel and inhuman treatment. Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) 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. B. Lack of adequate medical care in relation to the loss of vision of Lucas Matías Mendoza B.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 184. The Commission maintained that it was for the State to provide information on the Lucas Matías Mendoza’s loss of vision in both eyes while he was detained and on the medical care provided. However, according to the Commission, the State “failed to comply with the burden of proof” and did not “substantiate that its authorities acted with the special care they were supposed to provide […]”; particularly given that Lucas Matías was a minor when the retinal detachment in his left eye occurred. Consequently, the Commission considered that Argentina had violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza. 185. The representative argued that, despite the disability Lucas Matías Mendoza acquired while deprived of his liberty, “[d]uring the 16 years and 7 months he was detained,” his situation was not modified, even though, “on several occasions, different State officials” recommended a differentiated treatment. She emphasized that Lucas Mendoza was a minor when he suffered the retinal detachment. However, according to the representative, “the State only reacted […] on June 17, 2011,” when he was granted house arrest. Consequently, she considered that the State had violated Articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2), and 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza. 250 Cf. Social report on Lucas Matías Mendoza prepared by prepared by the Program of Attention to Social Problems and Community Relations of the national Ombudsman’s Office, of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6935). 251 Cf. Social report on Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal prepared by the Program of Attention to Social Problems and Community Relations of the national Ombudsman’s Office, of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 6949). 252 Cf. Social report on Ricardo David Videla Fernández prepared by the Program of Attention to Social Problems and Community Relations of the national Ombudsman’s Office, of November 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 7133). 62