19 (b) (c) to refute the court’s arguments,” and that the issues raised “concern the weighing of the evidence –identifications and testimony-; these are not issues that can be challenged via a cassation motion as these matters are up to the trial judge to decide because it is the judge who weighs the evidence […] the complainant’s grievances only reveal a difference of opinion on issues already litigated and 38 decided.” In the case of the second complaint motion, the Chamber held that the cassation and constitutionality motions that the Juvenile Public Defender filed had been “wrongfully denied inasmuch as the trial court overstepped its authority in analyzing whether the motions filed against its own ruling were admissible, and ventured into an assessment of the merits which only this Chamber has the 39 authority to review.” Therefore, it decided to admit those motions. On the third complaint motion, to declare that the cassation motion filed by the private defense attorney representing Lucas Matías Mendoza was inadmissible with respect to all issues having to do with the assessment and weighing of the testimony, the identification of persons in custody and other evidence taken by the court a quo; however, the complaint motion had to be admitted on the issue of the possible harm resulting from the sentence of life imprisonment, given the 40 provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 78. In a ruling dated April 4, 2000, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled on the specific point of the complaint motion filed by the National Public Defender’s Office on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, which it had declared admissible. In the April 4, 2000 ruling, it held that the court a quo had in fact complied with the requirements established in Article 4 of Law 22,278. The Court held further that “the ruling being challenged is sufficiently well reasoned and well founded regarding the individualization of the sentence given to Claudio David Núñez”; the court also found that the sentence imposed was entirely 41 proportional to the magnitude and severity of the crimes of which he was convicted. 79. In decisions handed down on April 19, 2000, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled on the merits of the motions filed by the Juvenile Public Defender and the attorney representing Lucas Matías Mendoza: (a) In the case of the cassation and constitutionality motions filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza by the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, the Chamber decided that with respect to the cassation motions, the trial court had complied with the requirements set forth in Article 4 of 42 Law 22,278, and “discarded that they should have received a reduced sentence or been exempt from any penalty (paragraphs two and three of the article in question); the court found no evidence that the decision was in any way arbitrary.” As for the constitutionality motion, the court reiterated that under Argentine law, persons sentenced to life imprisonment do have the possibility of 38 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Decision of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on October 28, 1999, Case No. 2209. 39 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Decision of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on October 28, 1999, Case No 2211. 40 Original petition filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Decision of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on October 28, 1999, Case No 2215. 41 Original petition filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez received on July 1, 2002. Attachment 2. Court Rulings. Decision of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation on April 4, 2000, Case No. 2209. 42 Under Article 4 of Law 22,278, the following conditions must be present in order to impose sentence on a minor: a) the person’s criminal culpability –and civil liability if there is any- must be established according to the rules governing procedure- 2) the person concerned must be 18 years of age; 3) the person must have undergone a period of remedial custodial treatment of no less than one year, a period that may be extended if necessary until the person attains his/her majority..