the decisions of March 9, 2012, in favor of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, and of August 21, 2012, in favor of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, handed down as a result of the appeals for review that had been filed (supra paras. 41 and 94), the representative indicated that, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza, applicable to the former case, and the national Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to the latter, the appeal for review does not satisfy the requirements of the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 239. The State declared “the inadmissibility of the claims regarding the failure to respect the guarantee of a comprehensive review of the sentences.” Regarding the appeals system established at both the national level and in the province of Mendoza, it maintained that, “in accordance with the guidelines established by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the Casal precedent […], it is only possible to decide the cassation procedure adequately to the extent that a comprehensive review of the conviction is guaranteed.” Therefore, it contested the arguments regarding “the failure to comply with the binding decisions of the [Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, because] they abide by a dispersed system of constitutional control adopted by the national Constitution (Articles 116 and 117).” The State also argued that the decision of the Mendoza Superior Court in favor of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal in the context of an appeal in cassation reflects some application of and following up on the criteria of the Supreme Court, particularly those of the Casal judgment. As for the specific situation of each of the convicted youths, the State argued that “[the Commission did not advise which] defense contentions or arguments the youths were prevented from asserting before the higher courts, particularly when it indicate[d] that the defense counsel reserved some possible grounds for appeal in view of the probable rejection of the appeal for formal reasons.” The State questioned why, having the route of an appeal immediately available after being notified personally by the national Ombudsman’s Office, the convicted youths failed to file the relevant appeals, and the said counsel did not advise them to do this. Accordingly, it concluded that “it is clear that the convicted youths did not exhaust all the available remedies for the full exercise of their right to defense during a trial […]; proof of this is the current processing before the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber [of] the appeals for review […]” filed in favor of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza (supra para. 94). Therefore, the State maintained that the legislative system currently in force is suitable not only for regulating the determination of the sentence, but also to rectify judicial decisions.” C.2. Considerations of the Court 240. In this case, both the Inter-American Commission and the representative have argued that, owing to laws that are still in force regarding appeals, at both the national level and in the province of Mendoza, the appeals in cassation filed by the five victims sentenced to life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively, were rejected and failed to obtain a comprehensive review of the sentences pursuant to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. The State argued, on the one hand, that the victims had not exhausted all available remedies, because a review of the convictions of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza had even been authorized subsequently. On the other hand, it denied that the current legislation was contrary to the right to appeal a judgment, because this issue had been decided by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the “Casal” judgment. The Court will now refer to these two aspects. 241. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes the protection of the minimum guarantees in favor of “[e]very person accused of a criminal offense.” The Court understands that Article 8(2) refers, in general terms, to the minimum guarantees for a person who is 79