domestic high courts recognize relatively similar damage associated with “relationships” or other similar or complementary concepts. 389 315. In this case, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal were sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed while under 18 years of age. During the public hearing, expert witness Sofía Tiscornia mentioned that this sentence imposed on them “a life project, but for a life that implies the end, the closure, of all autonomy and decent social existence.” She also indicated that “all of them have described how the imposing of the life sentence closed off any future perspectives,” because “the number of years of imprisonment imposed was more than any adolescent has lived.” The expert witness also indicated that the State “is responsible for restoring human dignity to [the victims].” Life imprisonment means the end of the road of life when it has barely begun. 390 According to expert witness Tiscornia, when adolescents realize the magnitude of their punishment, “the effect is devastating; they feel that life is over and, in many cases, they think that the only thing that can happen with their life, is to end it” (supra para. 180). 316. In this Judgment, it has been established that the life sentences imposed on the victims did not meet the standards of the rights of the child as regards criminal justice, and had harmful effects that ended their future expectations of life (supra paras. 177 and 183). Unlike an adult, a minor has not had the complete opportunity to plan his work or studies in order to address the challenges posed by today's societies. 391 However, the Court finds it evident that imposing life sentences on these minors, and the absence of any real possibility of achieving social rehabilitation, annulled their possibility of forming a life project at a crucial stage of their education and their personal development. Also, since the victims were sentenced to imprisonment for crimes committed as children, the State had the obligation to provide them with the possibility of schooling or vocational training, so that they could undergo social rehabilitation and develop a life project. Thus, the Court considers that the most appropriate way to ensure a decent life project for César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal is through training that enables them to develop appropriate skills and abilities for their autonomy, insertion in the workforce, and social integration. 317. Therefore, the Court decides that, as soon as possible, the State should provide the said victims with the educational or formal training options they request, including university education, through the prison system or, if they are released, through its public institutions. Regarding the latter, the State must also provide them with a comprehensive scholarship while they are studying, which should include travel expenses and suitable educational materials for their studies until these are completed, to enable them to meet the requirements of an adequate education The State must implement this measure of reparation within one year of notification of this Judgment. 318. Since, according to the information provided by the parties, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Lucas Matías Mendoza are deprived of their liberty for the supposed perpetration of other offenses (supra paras. 92, 96 and 97), the State must ensure that they receive the 389 Cf. Council of State of Colombia: Contentious Administrative Chamber, Third Section, Judgment of July 19, 2000, Case file No. 11,842, and Contentious Administrative Chamber, Third Section, Judgment of September 14, 2011, Case file 38,222. See, also: Judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Civil Cassation Chamber, Judgment No. 1100131030061997-09327-01 of May 13, 2008, and Criminal Cassation Chamber, Judgment No. 33833 of August 25, 2010. 390 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Asociación Pro Derechos Civiles (merits file, tome III, folio 1943). 391 Cf. Amicus curiae submitted by the Asociación Pro Derechos Civiles (merits file, tome III, folio 1943). 100