38 the sentencing authority must strictly fulfill these obligations when a sentence of life imprisonment or confinement for life is imposed, given the severity of such a sentence. 167. In the instant case, the Commission observes that the court authorities that ordered the sentence of life imprisonment in the case of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández, and of confinement for life in the case of Claudio David Núñez, simply established criminal culpability and enforced the same sentence that an adult offender would have received for the same crimes. 168. In the respective court rulings, the judges made reference to the seriousness of the crimes of which they were convicted, but refrained from examining alternatives other than life imprisonment. Thus, for example, while generic references were made to the authority to reduce the sentence under Article 4 of Law No. 22,278, the nature of the crimes was the central factor in determining the sentence. No consideration was given to a judgment of diminished culpability for crimes when the offender was a child at the time the crimes were committed, nor was an individualized examination done of any progress made during the period of remedial custodial treatment. On this point, the court rulings again made generic references to the fact that the progress made was not sufficient; however the only factor considered in their assessment was the severity of the crime, but not the particular circumstances of the victims during the course of that treatment. 169. The Commission recognizes that the crimes attributed to César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández, are especially serious. The Commission also understands that the severity of an offense is a fundamental factor in determining the appropriate penalty. However, as the crimes were committed when the defendants were still children, the court authorities had an obligation to assess the seriousness of the crime in combination with factors such as diminished culpability, the possibilities of re-socialization, the results of remedial custodial treatment, and others considerations. By imposing the most severe penalty of imprisonment without a detailed examination of these questions and without exploring other alternatives to such a sentence, the court authorities likened the victims’ situation to that of adults, and thus failed to comply with their international obligations vis-à-vis the special protection of children, which hold that imprisonment shall only be imposed as a “last resort” and “for the shortest appropriate period of time.” 5. An analysis to determine whether the possibility of release on parole, as contemplated in Argentine law, meets the periodic review requirements 170. According to the proven facts, the rule determining the number of years of a sentence that must be served before becoming eligible for parole, and the conditions that must be met for parole to be granted is Article 13 of the Penal Code of the Nation. Under that article, persons sentenced to life imprisonment or confinement for life may apply for parole once they have served 20 years of their sentence. This article applies to both adults and juveniles convicted of crimes that occurred while they were under the age of 18. As previously observed, because the legal system allows this equal treatment of adults and minors, it is incompatible with the State’s obligations under the American Convention. 133 171. Under Argentine law, court authorities are to wait 20 years before conducting an individualized review to check for any progress made in the re-socialization process; if that review is favorable, only then can they order the release of a person convicted for events that occurred when he/she 134 was still under 18 years of age. This is unreasonable and contrary to the periodic review requirement. 133 According to the standards established by the IACHR in the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Resolution No. 1/08), oversight of sentence enforcement must be by a court and is the jurisdiction of the competent judges and courts (Principle VI). 134 For comparison purposes, it is worth noting that the 20 years that must be served before one is eligible for parole is more than twice the average of the maximum sentences that can be given to juvenile offenders in Latin American countries. See: the State’s brief, received on October 2, 2005. In this communication the State sent the Commission the texts of a bill that amended Law 22,278. Attached to that communication was a table comparing the maximum prison sentences that can be given to minors under 18 years of age, in 15 Latin American countries. According to this comparative table, the countries that had the highest maximum sentences in the case of minors included Argentina and the following countries: Bolivia, 16 to 21 years, ordinary law;