“he could not identify them” (supra para. 132). 200 Also, on February 1, 2008, although he was “unable to deny the existence of the reported incident,” the prosecutor also requested the closure of case No. 616, regarding Claudio David Núñez, because “[…] the victim’s lack of cooperation […] prevent[ed] the investigation from continuing […] until new evidence or […] eye witnesses [appeared] that could allow the investigation to continue.” 201 Thus, Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 2 decided to admit the prosecutor’s requests and “[to archive] the […] proceedings, pending the appearance of new evidence that would allow them to be reopened.” 202 VIII RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, PERSONAL LIBERTY, AND OF THE CHILD IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 134. The Commission argued that “the sentences to life imprisonment that were handed down […] were based on Law 22,278 of August 25, 1980, amended by Law 22,803,” but that the said law had no “special parameters for the application of criminal punishments to adolescents […],” so that “the victims in this case were treated as adult offenders.” The Commission also indicated that the judges who heard the cases did not explore alternatives to the sentence imposed, and did not provide grounds for failing to apply their legal authority to reduce the sentence, which violated the standard of limiting the deprivation of liberty of adolescents “as a measure of ‘last resort’ and ‘for the shortest time appropriate.’” It also argued that the presumed victims did benefit from a periodic review of their sentences, and that “the legal possibility of release is not sufficient per se to make the application of life imprisonment […] compatible with international obligations concerning special protection for children and the purpose of the punishment under the American Convention.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission considered that the sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life were applied arbitrarily, and that Law 22,278 was incompatible with the rights and obligations established in the American Convention. 135. The Commission also indicated that, in this specific case, “there were a series of violations of the American Convention, in particular of the rights established in Articles 19 and 5(6) [… which] mean that sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life were applied arbitrarily.” Lastly, it indicated that this arbitrariness was “aggravated by the constraints to the review by means of the appeals in cassation filed by the [presumed] victims.” Therefore, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the State had violated Articles 5(6), 7(3) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez. 136. The representative agreed, in general, with the Commission’s position. However, she also argued that Argentina had violated the principle of subsidiarity of a prison sentence for juveniles by applying life sentences and by its failure to extend the tutelary treatment. In 200 Cf. Brief of alternate Federal Prosecutor Ariel Omar Berze of June 23, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 7506). 201 Cf. Brief of alternate Federal Prosecutor Ariel Omar Berze of February 1, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIV, folio 7564). 202 Cf. Judicial decision of the Federal Judge of Criminal and Correctional Court of First Instance No. 2 of Lomas de Zamora, of July 2, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIII, folio 7510). See, also, judicial decision of the Federal Judge of Criminal and Correctional Court of First Instance No. 2 of Lomas de Zamora, of February 29, 2008 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome XIV, folio 7566). 47