37 160. In the following sections, the Commission will examine whether the Argentine State has complied with these obligations in the instant case. 3. An analysis to determine whether the criminal justice system, as applied to actual cases, had established rules and regulations for cases where the defendants are children and adolescents that are different from the rules and regulations applied in cases involving adults 161. As for the obligation to order the special measures of protection necessary so that the criminal justice system applicable in the case of child and adolescent offenders gives special consideration to their particular circumstances and their needs for protection and, in so doing, establishes rules and regulations that are different from those applied in cases involving adult offenders, the Commission observes that the sentences to life imprisonment ordered in the cases of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández; and the sentence of confinement for life ordered in the case of Claudio David Núñez, were based on Law 22,278 of August 25, 1980, as amended by Law 22,803. 162. As described in the section on proven facts, this law sets out general guidelines on the possibility of assigning criminal blame to adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18. The crimes and the sentences they carry, and any questions related to sentence enforcement, including the possibility of release on parole, are regulated under the National Penal Code. Article 4 of Law 22,278 regulates certain special sentencing authorities that judges hearing such cases have, such as the authority to refrain from imposing a sentence of imprisonment based on the result of the remedial custodial treatment; should the judge deem a sentence of imprisonment to be in order, he/she has the authority to reduce the sentence to the one imposed for an attempt to commit the crime in question. These are discretionary authorities, and hence not mandatory. 163. In other words, when it comes to sentencing and the possibility of release or parole, Law 22,278 applies the same rules that would apply in the case of an adult offender. Because of that, the alleged victims in this case were eligible to receive the maximum sentences prescribed under Article 80 of the National Penal Code, specifically life imprisonment and confinement for life. Article 13 of the Penal Code was also applicable in their case, which prescribes the number of years or portion of a sentence that one must serve before qualifying for parole and the conditions that must be met to be paroled. 164. The Commission observes that while Law 22,278 provides that juvenile offenders are to begin serving their sentence when they turn 18 years of age, the State’s obligation to provide special measures under the juvenile criminal justice system is not based on the age at which the sentence will be served, but rather the age at which they became culpable under criminal law. Therefore, the State’s reaction to juvenile crime must be different from its reaction in the case of adult crime and proportional to the diminished retributive justice that must be present for those who are children under international law. 165. Thus, the consequence of the lack of special sentencing guidelines for cases involving juveniles, particular sentences of imprisonment and the possibility of release or parole, was that the victims in the instant case were treated as adult offenders, which is incompatible with the rights protected under articles 19 and 5(6) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 4. An examination of the principles on deprivation of liberty as a measure of “last resort” and “for as short a time as possible” given the facts of the case 166. As observed in the section on international standards in the matter of juvenile criminal justice, a sentence involving deprivation of liberty should be imposed only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. This higher standard of the ‘last resort’ principle with regard to deprivation of liberty means that court authorities charged with sentencing juveniles have to explore the alternatives to imprisonment or incarceration and do a serious examination of the particular circumstances of each case that necessitate a sentence of imprisonment rather than a less severe sentence. Obviously,