21 83. The court-appointed defense attorney in the case filed a cassation motion against the ruling, arguing that sufficient weight had not been given to the results of the remedial custodial treatment that Saúl Cristián Roldán had undergone and the progress he had made. The defense counsel argued that the ruling did not offer any valid reasoning on this point and observed that her client should be given 54 the reduced sentence allowed under Article 4 of Law 22,278. 84. By a ruling dated August 5, 2002, the Mendoza Province Supreme Court denied this cassation motion. The court deemed that what the defense was seeking was a review of matters of fact and evidence. Accordingly, the Mendoza Province Supreme Court ruled that “the assessment of the facts and evidence of a case is the exclusive purview of the court a quo; it further held that if, when the facts and evidence were assessed, the principles governing correct human understanding were observed, then the ruling cannot be voided in cassation.” It also observed that the allegation of a lack of legal grounds did not hold up. In the paragraphs introducing its findings in the case, the trial court stated the reasons for its decision (…) “The weight that the court a quo has assigned to the remedial custodial treatment cannot be 55 challenged via a cassation motion …” 4. Ricardo David Videla Fernández 85. On November 28, 2002, the Juvenile Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Mendoza Province sentenced Ricardo David Videla Fernández to imprisonment for life as punishment for the following crimes: two aggravated homicides; five aggravated robberies; one attempt at aggravated robbery; aggravated coercion; possession of a military firearm and unlawful carriage of a civilian firearm. 56 Nine criminal cases were instituted for these crimes. The crimes of which Ricardo David Videla Fernández was convicted took place when he was 17 years nine months old. 86. On December 19, 2002, the private defense attorney representing Ricardo David Videla Fernández filed a cassation motion for each of the joined causes of action, alleging a misapplication of the law in the judgment. Specifically, the violations alleged included a failure to nullify some of the evidence brought to bear in the case, misapplication of the substantive law in determining the classification of the crime for the conduct displayed, the lack of legal reasoning, the illogical reasoning, and the arbitrary nature 57 of the sentence. 87. The Mendoza Province Supreme Court formally dismissed these motions and appeals by a decision of April 24, 2003. As for the arguments made regarding nullity, the Mendoza Province Supreme Court held that: To vacate a judgment because it is alleged to be based on unlawful or invalid evidence, the complainant must show clearly and concretely how that so-called invalid or unlawful evidence had a decisive and essential impact on the decision (emphasis in the original). (…) It is not enough to point to an alleged irregularity; instead, the defect must be shown to be determinative in the process. The emphasis must be on how that defect caused the ruling to go 54 According to the account given in the decision on the cassation motion, dated August 5, 2003. Original petition filed on behalf of Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, received on August 5, 2002. Attachment 2. Court Rulings. 55 Original petition filed on behalf of Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, received on August 15, 2003. Attachment 2. Court Rulings. Ruling of the Mendoza Supreme Court, dated August 5, 2002, case No. 73.771. 56 Criminal case numbers: 109/02, 110/02, 111/02, 112/02, 113/02, 116/02, 117/02, 120/02 and 121/02. Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. Judgment No. 107 of the Criminal Court of the First Circuit of Mendoza Province, dated November 28, 2002. 57 Original petition filed on behalf of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and received on December 30, 2003. Attachments. See the successive cassation motions that private defense attorney Fernando Gastón Peñaloza filed on December 19, 2002, cases Nos.: No. 121/02; 116/02; 112/02; 109/02; 110/02; and 117/02.