40 this Court concluded that the tribunal that tried Mr. Usón Ramírez lacked jurisdiction and impartiality, essential prerequisites to due process. The effects of this situation are projected to all of the proceeding, rendering it defective from the beginning, and to the consequences derived from it. In that regard, any act of a tribunal that manifestly lacks competence that results in a restriction or deprivation of personal liberty, such as those that occurred in the present case to the detriment of Mr. Usón Ramírez, lead to the consequent violation of Article 7(1) of the American 137 Convention. 177. The Commission has thus far concluded that the proceedings that ended in the sentences of prison time and life imprisonment were flawed with a number of violations of the American Convention, in particular violations of the rights established in articles 19 and 5(6). This is the conclusion from the analysis of the facts in the light of international standards on juvenile criminal jsutice and the special obligations of protection implicit in those standards. In effect, the Commission concluded that: i) the sentences were imposed on the basis of a legal framework that equated the situation of juveniles with that of adults; ii) the court authorities who presided over the respective cases failed to explore the various alternatives to the sentences imposed and failed to cite the legal grounds for not exercising the authority they had under the law to reduce the sentences, which was a violation of the standard requiring that the sentence of imprisonment be used only as a last resort and then only for the shortest appropriate period of time; iii) the victims would not have the opportunity for a periodic review for 20 years, which was a disproportionately lengthy period to have to wait. Considering all these violations, the sentences of prison time and life imprisonment were imposed arbitrarily. 178. This arbitrary conduct was compounded by the limitations on the scope of the review that the courts of cassation allowed when the victims filed motions of cassation. This issue will be examined at greater length later in this report. 179. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that in the instant case, a number of arbitrary decisions and procedural and substantive violations occurred that rendered the victims’ deprivation of liberty as an inhumane trearment and arbitrary under the terms of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez. 180. For the record, the Commission wishes to clarify that it is not the job of the Commission to determine whether the victims deserved a sentence of imprisonment, and if they did, for how long. Such a decision is the purview of the domestic courts. As indicated in the recommendations, it is up to the State to take the measures necessary so that the the victims’ legal accountability for the conduct attributed to them is determined in accordance with the State’s international obligations under the American Convention. 7. Conclusion 181. Based on the observations made thus far, the Commission concludes that in failing to comply with the applicable international standards by sentencing César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández to life imprisonment and Claudio David Núñez to confinement for life, the Argentine State violated their rights under articles 19, 5(1), 5(2), 5(6) and 7(3) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. B. 137 The right to appeal a judgment to a higher court [article 8(2)(h)] of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof]. I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 148.