will not rule on the supposed violations of the Convention committed to the detriment of Jimena Abigail Puma Mealla, Lourdes Natalia Plaza and Daniel David Alejandro Videla Plaza. 65. Lastly, this Court has noted that, in its Merit Report, the Inter-American Commission individualized another eight persons as presumed victims of violations of Article 5 of the American Convention, as next of kin of the above-mentioned youths (supra para. 59), whose names were recorded incorrectly. The Court observes, in this regard, that these names were corrected by the representative in her pleadings and motions brief, and that the evidence she provided proves that they are the same persons. 32 66. Based on the above, the Court will consider the following 21 persons individualized in the Merits Report as presumed victims in this case: César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldan Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández, Stella Maris Fernández, Ricardo Roberto Videla, Isolina del Carmen Herrera, Romina Beatríz Muñoz, Ailén Isolina Mendoza, Samira Yamile Mendoza, Santino Geanfranco Mendoza, Ana María del Valle Brito, Jorgelina Amalia Díaz, Zahira Lujan Núñez, Pablo Castaño, Marta Graciela Olguín, Elba Mercedes Pajón, Lucas Lautano Mendoza, Juan Caruso and Florinda Rosa Cajal. C. Age of majority in Argentina 67. The representative argued that Ricardo Videla and Lucas Matías Mendoza should have been afforded special treatment as minors until they attained their majority at 21 years of age, in accordance with Argentine civil legislation in force at the time the alleged events took place. 33 Taking into account international standards and, in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 34 and its case law, the Court will understand “child” to mean any person who has not yet attained 18 years of age (infra para. 140), 35 unless the applicable domestic law stipulates a different age of majority. In this regard, the Court observes that, according to the information in the case file, in Argentina the adult criminal regime is applicable as of 18 years of age (infra paras. 74 and 75). The representative did not explain how and to what extent the civil legislation mentioned was applicable at the stage of execution of sentence when she alleged that Ricardo David Videla Fernandez and Lucas Matías Mendoza should have been considered children. Therefore, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine that these presumed victims should have received special treatment as minors until 21 years of age during the execution of the sentence. VII PROVEN FACTS 32 Ailén Isolina Mendoza (Isolina Aylen Muñoz), Samira Yamile Mendoza (Sanira Yamile Muñoz), Santino Geanfranco Mendoza (Santino Gianfranco Muñoz), Zahira Lujan Núñez (Saída Lujan Díaz), Lucas Lautaro Mendoza (Lautaro Lucas Vilte), Elizabeth Paola Mendoza (Paola Elizabeth Mendoza), Verónica Luana Mendoza (Verónica Albana Mendoza) and Daiana Salomé Olguín (Diana Salome Olguín) Cf. Powers of attorney, Annex I to the pleadings and motions brief (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XI, folios 5682 to 5787), and Birth certificates, Annex II to the pleadings and motions brief (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XI, folios 5778 to 5804). 33 In her brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, the representative cited article 126 of the Argentine Civil Code (Law 17,711) and Law 26,579 that amended the Civil Code, available at: http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/Annexs/160000-164999/161874/norma.htm. However, the Court was not provided with a copy of these laws. 34 Article 1 indicates that “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” 35 Cf. “Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child.” Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para.42. The word “child” also covers adolescents. 24