entail the deprivation of liberty for the shortest possible time or for a period specified at the time of sentencing, and they do permit periodic review of the need for the deprivation of liberty of the children. 164. Consequently the Court finds that the State violated the right recognized in Article 7(3) of the American Convention to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) of this instrument, by sentencing them to life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively, for the perpetration of offenses while still minors. In this regard, the Court observes that, in the judgments delivered by the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice on March 9, 2012, sentencing Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and, on August 21, 2012, by the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber sentencing César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, among other considerations, it was indicated that, when imposing sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life for the perpetration of offenses while under 18 years of age, the judges did not consider the application of the principles contained in the international laws on the rights of the child. 235 B.3. Purpose of the sentence to imprisonment 165. The American Convention on Human Rights does not refer expressly to life imprisonment or reclusion for life. However, the Court underscores that, pursuant to Article 5(6) of the American Convention, “the deprivation of liberty shall have as an essential aim the reform and social reintegration of the prisoners.” In this regard, the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that, when a child has been found guilty of committing a crime, the child has the right “to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.” 236 Thus, the measure that should be ordered as a result of the perpetration of an offense must have the objective of the child’s reintegration into society. Therefore, the proportionality of the sentence is closely related to its purpose. 235 Regarding Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, the Mendoza Supreme Court of Justice considered that: “it follows that, when deciding on the sentence, the judge must take into account its effects from the perspective of special prevention, because fundamentally juvenile criminal law is designed to avoid its negative effects [… and to achieve] social reinsertion; therefore this must be specifically considered in the punishment.” Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Mendoza Judiciary of March 9, 2012, in case No. 102.319 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7897). Regarding César Alberto Mendoza, the respective sentence indicates that: “the judges are obliged to justify the punishment imposed and to proceed to apply the sanction; they must also explain the grounds for whether or not they apply the reduced level under article 4 of Law 22,278. All this is derived from the principles of ultima ratio, subsidiarity and the best interests of the child that must be considered when prosecuting juveniles.” Consequently, “the sentence, without the reduction to the level of an attempted offense, must only be applied in extraordinary circumstances. The Court must assess – in order not to reduce the sentence – how this would be appropriate to promote the rehabilitation of the juvenile, because, the contrary would entail giving the juvenile the same treatment as an adult without considering his different status. […] Thus, it may be seen that an analysis has not been made of the guilt for the act (which the judges had to consider especially in a reduced way […]), but rather they based themselves on criteria of dangerousness that are included in the criminal law relating to the offender, and which are incompatible with the principles embodied in articles 18 and 19 of the [Constitution].” Similar considerations were made with regard to Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza. Cf. Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012, in case No. 14,087 (file of annexes to the representative’s final written arguments, tome XVII, folios 8238, 8239 and 8288). 236 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and open to signature and ratification by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, article 40.1. 57