15 National Chamber of Criminal Cassation dismissed this motion in a ruling of June 23, 2000. This court reached its conclusion after considering the following: Having examined the court ruling at 3105/3134, this Chamber does not find any basis for the defense counsel’s claim that the court failed to state the grounds for and justification of the sentence, nor does it find any deviation from the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 3 of Law 22,278. In fact, under the article in question, once the defendant reaches the age of 18, the court has the authority to impose sentence upon a person convicted of a crime committed while still a minor, when the facts of the case so dictate; it may reduce the sentence to the penalty imposed for an attempt to commit the same crime. This was the framework in which the Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings operated when (at 313, paragraph 8) it explains the unavoidable need to impose punishment on César Mendoza, as the court realized the number and severity of the criminal acts which he co-authored […]. Given the specifics and consequences of his criminal behavior, his conduct in prison is not sufficient to exempt him from sentencing or to apply a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the mere fact that the court mentioned favorable circumstances does not constitute a contradiction, as this does not necessarily signal that those positives are sufficient to offset the abundant factors that –in the judgment of the court a quo- made César Mendoza deserving of the penalty imposed; this argument, therefore, has to be dismissed. As for the questions raised suggesting that the penalty was excessive, it is worth recalling that, as this Chamber has held time and time again, the rules governing the individualization of the penalty are to be applied by the judges hearing the case and are therefore in principle not subject to review on cassation. The assessment is a function of the discretionary authorities of the trial court, except when it can be shown that a ruling is arbitrary and thus in blatant violation of constitutional guarantees [case law citations]. In the case sub judice, given the facts and circumstances weighed by the Juvenile Court of Oral Proceedings, which were examined in earlier paragraphs, the penalty does not appear to be either excessive or arbitrary. This having been said, this Chamber does not find grounds for the petitioner’s claims of arbitrariness […] since the decision being challenge has been reasonably substantiated […] and, 17 moreover, sets forth the minimum necessary and sufficient legal grounds […]. 66. The Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings admitted the two motions challenging the constitutionality of the ruling and referred them to the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, which dismissed them in its ruling of June 23, 2000, in which it also dismissed the cassation motion filed. Summarizing, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation based its decision on the following reasoning: When international treaties speak of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they are not referring to penalties that deprive an individual of his/her liberty or to the length of the sentences … The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not apply to the pain or suffering that are experienced as a result of lawfully applied penalties, or that are inherent or incidental to them. Because our laws provide for the possibility of parole for those sentenced to life imprisonment, the application of a life sentence in the case of a minor does not violate Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under our legal system, the only sentence of life imprisonment that does not allow for the possibility of parole is a life confinement […] the particular situation of César Alberto Mendoza is not contemplated in Article 14 of the Penal Code. The court trying the case determines the sentence, in exercise of its authorities, as it alone weighs the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As a matter of principle, these matters are not subject to review on cassation except in the case of an obvious absurdity or arbitrariness, which is 18 not present in the case sub judice. 17 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Ruling of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on June 23, 2000, Case No. 2544. 18 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Ruling of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on June 23, 2000, Case No. 2557.