14 judgment was delivered, the Commission deems it unnecessary to elaborate upon the scope of that decision at this time, notwithstanding any observations included below at paragraphs XX –XX. C. The criminal proceedings prosecuted against the alleged victims 1. César Alberto Mendoza 61. On October 28, 1999, Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings No. 1 of the autonomous city of Buenos Aires delivered its ruling in case No. 1048, in which it convicted César Alberto Mendoza of coauthorship of four counts of aggravated robbery, committed with a firearm, two counts of aggravated homicide and aggravated battery, all of which were materially concurrent. Under Law 22,278, César 11 Alberto Mendoza was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The crimes of which César Alberto Mendoza was convicted occurred when he was 17 years, 10 months old. 62. On November 16, 1999, the court-appointed public defender filed a cassation motion to challenge the lower-court decision. As grounds for the motion, the defense attorney cited “the arbitrary nature of the ruling because of the failure to give sufficient grounds for the punishment imposed”; defense counsel asserted that “the ruling delivered failed to give sufficient justification for the penalty imposed […] and failed to explain why it did not apply the reduced sentencing provision contained in Article 4 of Law 22,278.” The attorney filing the motion concluded that her client was given an excessive and 12 unsubstantiated sentence. 63. That same day, November 16, 1999, the court-appointed public defender filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the ruling, alleging that the sentence imposed constituted “cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, incompatible with social re-adaption” and, therefore, in violation of 13 the National Constitution and the other human rights treaties to which the State is party. The head of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office No. 3 filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the conviction on 14 November 18, 1999. 64. The Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings, serving as the court that decides whether an appeal will proceed to a higher court, delivered its decision on November 30, 1999, in which it denied the cassation motion on the grounds that the magistrates’ justifications for the severity of the punishment 15 imposed are not, as matter of principle, subject to cassation review. 65. The court-appointed public defender filed a complaint motion to challenge the denial of cassation. There again, she raised the issue of the failure to apply Article 4 of Law 22,278, on the grounds 16 that the lower court did not justify the reasons why the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The 11 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Ruling of Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings No. 1, dated October 28, 1999, case No. 1048. 12 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Cassation motion filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on November 16, 1999, case no. 1048. 13 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende on November 16, 1999, case no. 1048. 14 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Constitutionality challenge filed by the Juvenile Court Public Defender Claudia López Reta on November 18, 1999, Case No. 1048. 15 In this decision the court emphasized the point that: “the court hearing the case has the authority to review every motion to determine whether it satisfies the formal requirements that the law prescribes; its decision must not be based entirely on a summation of the requirements but must also delve into the admissibility requirements and shall stop the motion from going forward if it becomes apparent that the motion is improper. This does not mean that the court should become the judge of its own ruling; instead, it must participate in determining whether the motion qualifies to proceed to a higher court […]”. Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Decision of the Juvenile Court for Oral Proceedings No. 1 of November 30, 1999, Case No. 1048. 16 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Complaint motion filed to challenge the denial of the cassation motion filed by the court-appointed public defender Nelly Allende (the filing date is not visible on the document), case No. 1048.