27. In note OEA 317 of November 14, 2007, the State requested a one-month extension to submit its observations. This was granted in a communication dated November 26, 2007. 28. On December 17, 2007 the Commission received a message from the Colectivo de Derechos de Infancia y Adolescencia (Collective on the Rights of Children and Adolescents) reporting that Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza had been severely beaten by staff of the Federal Penitentiary Service at the complex where they were serving their sentences. That same day the Commission requested information from the State regarding the facts of the situation and the status of the young men. 29. On January 2, 2008, the Office of the National Public Defender of Argentina informed the Commission that on December 11, 2007, Courtroom II of the National Criminal Cassation Court had declared Article 1 of Law 22,278 on the Criminal Justice System for Minors to be unconstitutional. It found that in one hand the article declares that children under the age of 16 cannot be punished, and secondly, that the judicial authority is empowered to rule on their detention. 30. That same day, January 2, the Commission received a request for precautionary measures from the Office of the National Public Defender of Argentina on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, and César Alberto Mendoza, based on the mistreatment to which Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza had been subjected. It also expressed the need for the three young men to be transferred to another penitentiary complex for their own safety. On January 8, 2008 the Commission requested information from the State, and gave it seven days to reply. The reply from the State was received in note OEA 31 dated January 22, 2008. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. The petitioners 31. According to the petitioners, the alleged victims were sentenced to life in prison for crimes committed while they enjoyed the juridical condition of “children.” The juvenile criminal justice system was applied with restrictive criteria such that they were treated the same as if they had been adults. The importance of assessing whether or not they could even be imprisoned was overlooked, as was the standard of minimal intervention if imprisonment is indicated, according to the conventional framework on juveniles. The petitioners add that a sentence of deprivation of liberty should be viewed as a last resort, meaning that it should be imposed on the alleged victims only if absolutely necessary, and its length should be strictly linked to potential for rehabilitation. 32. The petitioners also state that the alleged victims filed motions for cassation against their convictions, which resulted in an affirmation of the life sentences imposed by the trial courts. They add that Claudio Núñez and Lucas Mendoza also received unfavorable judgments from the Supreme Court of the Nation, which denied their appeals for procedural reasons. The petitioners thus allege that added to the violations of Articles 7 and 19 of the American Convention was a violation of Article 8(2)(h), since they were denied the opportunity to have the judgment against them fully reviewed by a higher court