imposing of sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life on minors and for the regulation of the appeal in cassation. The Court will now refer to these two points. A. Law 22,278 A.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 291. The Inter-America Commission and the representative considered that Law 22,278 on the Juvenile Criminal Regime was incompatible with the rights and obligations established in the American Convention because it failed to comply with the special parameters for the application of criminal sanctions to children. Therefore, they considered that the State was responsible for failing to comply with the obligations established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(6), 7(3) and 19 thereof. 292. The State argued that “it is incorrect to argue that [Argentina] has a juvenile criminal regime that, with regard to the application and execution of punishments, is contrary to the principles of international law.” It indicated that the legislation concerning the determination, execution and periodic review of the criminal sanction is compatible with “the international principles.” According to the State, this matter was resolved with “the entry into force of Law No. 26,061 [Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents,] and its regulation by Decree No. 415/06.” Consequently, “the regulations on the execution of adult sentences […] can only be applied […] in analogous manner for the benefit of a child or adolescent […]. Otherwise the principle of legality in criminal matters would be infringed.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 293. The Court has established that Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of the State Parties to adapt their domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein. This obligation entails the adoption of measures of two kinds. On the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any kind that involve the violation of the guarantees established in the Convention; on the other hand, laws must be enacted and practices must be implemented leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees. 372 294. In this Judgment the Court has established that Argentina violated the right recognized in Article 7(3) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Claudio David Núñez, by imposing on them criminal sanctions of life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively, for the perpetration of offenses while minors (supra paras. 164 and 167). 295. In this regard, in this Judgment it has already been mentioned that Law 22,278, which was applied in this case and which dates from the time of the Argentine dictatorship, regulates some aspects of the attribution of criminal responsibility to minors and the measures that the judge can take before and after this attribution, including the possibility of imposing a criminal sanction. However, the determination of punishments, their severity, and the legal definition of offenses are regulated in the national Criminal Code, which is their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 372 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 207, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para.113. 94