17 27 evidence introduced had been improper. For its part, the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office’s cassation motion alleged an error in the application of Article 4 of Law 22,278. It argued that under that law, the judge hearing the case has the authority to keep Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez under observation for a longer period, which would have enabled them to demonstrate whatever progress they 28 had made in their re-socialization, a factor that would then have to be taken into account in sentencing. The court-appointed public defender representing Claudio David Núñez filed a cassation motion on the grounds that “the ruling handed down did not make a sufficient case for the sentence given to Claudio David Núñez, as it failed to explain why it did not apply Article 4 of Law 22,278 to reduce the sentence.” She alleged further that the evidence taken together was improperly and arbitrarily weighed, and argued that the evidence “is deceptive, insufficient and conflicting […] the circumstantial evidence upon which the ruling in question relies has not been corroborated by direct evidence; instead, with all of the facts in this case, they have had to resort to “flexible links” (vasos comunicantes) that allow them to create a 29 hypothetical relationship implicating the Núñez brothers in the commission of the criminal rampage.” 30 73. Two constitutionality challenges were filed to challenge the ruling: one filed by the Juvenile Public Defender on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez, and the other 31 filed by the court-appointed public defender representing Claudio David Núñez and on his behalf. 74. In the case of the constitutionality motions, the Juvenile Public Defender argued that sentences of life confinement and imprisonment given to persons who committed crimes when they were still under the age of 18 was a violation of Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, by extension, a violation of the National Constitution, which prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or 32 degrading treatment in the case of children. The court-appointed defender also used this argument in the constitutionality challenge she filed, stating that sentences of this kind violated similar provisions of other international treaties that Argentina had ratified, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and 33 the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 75. In its May 6, 1999 ruling, the Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings No. 1 of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires denied these five motions (the three cassation motions and the two constitutionality challenges). Summarizing, the court ruled as follows: (a) In the case of the cassation motion that the Juvenile Public Defender filed, the court deemed that the argument made therein confined itself to questioning the imposition of the 27 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Cassation motion filed by attorney Mirta Beatriz López on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 28 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Cassation motion filed by Juvenile Public Defender María Luz de Fazio on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Cassation motion filed by Juvenile Public Defender María Luz de Fazio on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 29 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Cassation motion filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 30 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by the Juvenile Court Public Defender María Luz de Fazio on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 31 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 32 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by the Juvenile Court Public Defender María Luz de Fazio on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 33 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on May 3, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069.