unconstitutional. Added to this was another appeal on the grounds that the sentence was unconstitutional filed by the Office of the Public Defender for Minors and Legally Disqualified Persons. The motion for cassation was denied by the Oral Juvenile Court. Therefore, the defense attorney for young Mendoza then filed a recurso de queja, or motion based on improper denial of the cassation motion, which was rejected by Courtroom II of the National Criminal Cassation Court. The appeals on the grounds that the sentence was unconstitutional were granted by the Oral Juvenile Court and were then referred to the National Criminal Cassation Court, which ruled on them together with the motion based on improper denial of cassation. Ultimately this Court declared that the sentence given to Mendoza was in keeping with the laws and the Constitution. In light of the rulings of the Criminal Cassation Court, Mendoza’s defense attorney filed a special federal appeal, which was denied on August 24, 2000, based on the argument that it did not contain the proper reasoning as required by law, nor did it contain concrete or reasoned criticism of the arguments which had served as the basis for the judgment being appealed. 46. The petitioners clarify that César Alberto Mendoza was prevented from filing a motion based on improper denial of an appeal with the National Supreme Court, because the denial of the special federal appeal was not reported to him personally. His court-appointed defense counsel failed to inform him of it and unilaterally decided to halt the appeals process. 47. The petitioners add that several months later, the alleged victim communicated with the Office of the National Public Defender of the National Supreme Court by letter, expressing his desire to be apprised of the status of his proceedings. It was then that he was informed that the judgment against him was final. Claudio David Núñez 48. The petitioners assert that this alleged victim was put on trial for committing the following crimes between October 3, 1996 and January 9, 1997: armed robberies; 5 aggravated homicides and injuries to several persons. He was 17 years old at the time. 49. As a result, on April 12, 1999, according to the provisions of law 22,278, he was sentenced to life in prison. His court-appointed defense attorney then filed a motion for cassation against the verdict and an appeal on the grounds that the sentence applied was unconstitutional. Added to this was a motion for cassation and another appeal on the grounds that the sentence was unconstitutional filed by the Office of the Public Defender for Minors and Legally Disqualified Persons. The motions for cassation were denied by the Oral Juvenile Court on May 6, 1999 based on the argument that they sought a review of the facts and the evidence. The court-appointed attorney for young Núñez then filed a recurso de queja, or motion based on improper denial of the cassation motion, which was partially denied by Courtroom II of the National Criminal Cassation Court on October 28, 1999, which determined to review the lower court error with regard to application of Article 4 of law 22,278, and later ruled that it was groundless. 50. The petitioners also assert that the appeals on the grounds of an unconstitutional sentence were denied by the Oral Juvenile Court because it found that life imprisonment did not constitute cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and that it did not violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in light of the legal possibility