of article 80 of the Criminal Code was “arbitrary.” 400 On September 27, 2012, the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber declared that the special remedy filed by the Prosecutor General of the Nation was inadmissible. Therefore, on October 5, 2012, the Prosecutor General filed a remedy of complaint before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 401 It has also been indicated that, at the date of this Judgment, the said remedy had not yet been resolved; thus, the decision of the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012, is still not final. 327. Based on the human rights violations declared in this case, particularly, those related to the imposing of life sentences on César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza and the denial of the appeal in cassation after their conviction (supra para. 256), the Court decided that the State must ensure that the sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life are never again imposed on César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, or on any other person for crimes committed while minors. Likewise, Argentina must guarantee that anyone currently serving such sentences for crimes committed while they were minors may obtain a review of the sentence adapted to the standards described in this Judgment (supra paras. 240 to 261). The foregoing in order to avoid the need for cases such as this one being lodged before the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights and, instead, that they can be decided by the corresponding State organs. B.3.3. Right to appeal the judgment B.3.3.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 328. The Commission acknowledged the impact of the Casal judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation as regards the scope of the appeal in cassation in relation to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. However, it indicated that this judgment is not binding on the Argentine judges. Therefore, it asked the Court to “order the legislative and any other type of measures to ensure effective compliance with [… the said] right […].” The representative indicated that the Casal judgment only had a “symbolic impact” and that the State had not yet amended the legal framework that prevented the comprehensive review of sentences. Consequently, she asked for “the enactment of a national framework law that would set minimum standards for the entire country, so that the inhabitants may enjoy an equal degree of legislative protection with regard to the right to this remedy. She also asked the Court to “order the necessary measures so that César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal may file an appeal to obtain a broad review of the convictions, in compliance with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention,” pursuant to the international standards for juvenile criminal justice. 329. The State indicated that, since 2005, a full review of the judgment has been possible, because the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decided this in the Casal judgment and that, according to these standards, “the appeal must truly allow the higher court to consider the merits of the dispute, examine the alleged facts, the proposed defense, the evidence provided, its assessment, and the laws cited and their application.” The State also indicated that it was inaccurate to claim that the Casal judgment was not 400 Cf. Special federal appeal submitted by the Prosecutor General of the Nation on September 4, 2012, against the decision of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012 (file of annexes to the representative’s final written arguments, folios 8365 and 8374). 401 Cf. Remedy of complaint filed by the Prosecutor General of the Nation before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on October 5, 2012 (merits file, tome III, folio 2354). 104