18 (b) (c) (d) sentences; on the substance of the motion, the court held that “the sentences imposed were in strict accordance with the law, inasmuch as the minors had spent over two years in remedial custodial treatment, and had reached the age of 18, whereupon they had been found criminally culpable; hence, one can hardly contend that the substantive law was wrongly applied.” As for the cassation motion that the court-appointed public defender filed, the court ruled that “it raises matters of fact, interpretation and assessment of the evidence, which are all issues that cannot be challenged by means of a cassation motion.” On this point, the court observed that the motion filed is a recitation of “each of the facts debated”, that issues related to the assessment of the evidence are the province of the court hearing the case and cannot be addressed via a cassation motion, and that the ruling is in fact well reasoned and well founded; only the trial court can decide the severity of the sentence. As for the cassation motion filed by the attorney representing Lucas Matías Mendoza, the court held that the issues it raised had to do with “question of fact and the weighing of evidence, which were not issues that could be challenged by means of a cassation motion.” As to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the court wrote that “it is unclear how the petitioner wanted the law applied and how, in her judgment, it was misapplied” […] “she confuses matters of fact that the cassation motion cannot address, with poorly argued matters of law that are not among the grounds that the law requires.” In the case of the constitutionality motions filed, the court held that “the conflict being alleged between the law invoked to impose a sentence of life confinement and imprisonment in the case of the minors Núñez and Mendoza and Article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is part of the Constitution, does not exist.” It added that “none of the international treaties invoked describes a sentence of life confinement or imprisonment as “cruel, inhuman and degrading” or expressly prohibits such a sentence –except in the case of minors-.” As for the question raised concerning parole, the court wrote that “parole is more than likely when the time comes, given the generosity of Argentina’s laws […],” which means that the State is in compliance with the requirement set forth in Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 34 inasmuch as the possibility of release on parole is there. 35 36 76. The attorney of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the National Public Defender’s Office and the 37 Juvenile Public Defender’s Office filed the corresponding complaint motions with the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation to challenge the denial of the cassation motions. 77. On October 28, 1999, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation issued three decisions wherein it resolved the following: (a) On the first complaint motion: i) to declare the complaint filed by the National Public Defender’s Office in the case (the legal representative for Claudio David Núñez) to be partially admissible; the only part of the motion it admitted was the argument claiming a failure to apply Article 4 of Law 22,278 in the sentencing of the adolescents, and ii) to dismiss the rest of the complaint as the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation held that the “grounds outlined by the party filing the complaint motion are a repetition of the arguments that the court already answered in earlier proceedings without the defense offering counter-arguments 34 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Ruling of the Juvenile Court for Criminal Proceedings No. 1, dated May 6, 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. Ruling of the Juvenile Court for Criminal Proceedings No. 1, dated May 6, 1999, Cases Nos. 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 35 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 17, 1999, in cases 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 36 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Complaint motion filed upon denial of a cassation motion filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on May 3, 1999, Cases 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069. 37 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Complaint motion that Juvenile Public Defender María Luz de Fazio filed on May 13, 1999, in response to dismissal of the cassation motion, in cases 833/838/839/851/910/920/937/972/1069.