decisions handed down on the applications for review that ultimately annulled the life sentences imposed on Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez applied this judgment, among other elements (supra paras. 92 and 94). 325. Also, the Court observes that Law 26,061, on the comprehensive protection of children and adolescents, establishes that application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is mandatory in every administrative, judicial or any other type of act, decision or measure adopted in their regard. 398 Nevertheless, in this Judgment, it was determined that Law 22,278, which currently regulates the juvenile criminal regime in Argentina and which was applied in this case, contains provisions contrary to the American Convention and to the international standards applicable to juvenile criminal justice (supra paras. 157 and 298). The Court has also established that, under Articles 19, 17, 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the State is obliged to guarantee, by the adoption or the necessary legislative or other measures, the protection of the child by the family, society and the State. In this way, the Court considers that, in order to comply with these obligations, Argentina must adapt its legal framework to the international standards indicated previously concerning juvenile criminal justice (supra paras. 139 to 167) and design and implement public policies with clear goals and timetables, as well as with the allocation of sufficient budgetary resources for the prevention of juvenile delinquency by means of effective programs and services that encourage the integral development of children and adolescents. Thus, Argentina must, among other matters, disseminate information on the international standards concerning the rights of the child, and provide support to the most vulnerable children and adolescents, and also their families. 399 B.3.2. Ensure that life imprisonment and reclusion for life are never again imposed 326. In this Judgment, it has been mentioned that on September 4, 2012, the Prosecutor General of the Nation filed a special appeal against the decision of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012 (supra para. 95), in favor of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, arguing, basically, that the principle of res judicata had been violated and that the declaration of the unconstitutionality of paragraph 7 committed an offense when he or she was under 18 years of age is related to the mandate to ensure that these punishments, above all, seek social reinsertion or, in the words of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ‘the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society” (art. 40(1)). […] The constitutional mandate ordering that punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social rehabilitation of the prisoners (art. 5(6), American Convention) and that the essential aim of the treatment of prisoners shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation (art. 10(3) ICCVP) requires that the sentencing judge should not disregard the possible effects of the punishment from the point of view of special prevention. This mandate, in the case of juveniles, is much more constructive and translates into the obligation to provide grounds for the need for the deprivation of liberty imposed from the standpoint of the possibilities of resocialization, which supposes the need to weigh carefully in this consideration of need the potential adverse effects of imprisonment.” Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Maldonado, Daniel Enrique et al., case No.1174, judgment of December 7, 2005 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4333). 398 “Article 2. Mandatory Application. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is of mandatory application in the conditions under which it is in force, in every administrative, judicial or any other type of action, decision or measure adopted concerning persons under eighteen years of age. Children and adolescents have the right to be heard and responded to in whatever form they express themselves, in all spheres.” Cf. Law 26,061 (merits file, tome IV, folio 2458). 399 Cf. United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10, Children’s rights in juvenile justice, 25 April 2007, CRC/C/GC/10, para. 18. 103