44 might have been raised in each case; however, given the legal framework and the consistently narrow interpretation of the cassation motion, the Commission deems that the analysis ought not to confine itself to determining whether the court authorities who knew of the cassation motions answered the arguments made therein; instead, the Commission must also consider that when they initiated the appeals process the victims were already saddled with a limitation in terms of the arguments they could make. This was because at the time, arguments challenging the facts or weighing of the evidence were automatically precluded; the court would not examine the importance or nature of those issues in each specific case. This exclusionary rule is incompatible with the broad scope of the remedy as contemplated in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. In the cas d'espèce, this situation is particularly serious given the nature of the sentences imposed on the victims and their special condition at the time the acts attributed to them were committed. The limits placed on the scope of the remedy had the effect of sealing an injustice committed by virtue of the arbitrary imposition of the sentences of imprisonment and life imprisonment in the case of the victims. 198. With that understanding, the Commission will evaluate, in each case, the various ways in which this violation manifested itself when the cassation motions filed on behalf of each victim were taken up. 2.1 César Alberto Mendoza 199. As established in the section on proven facts, the court-appointed public defender filed a cassation motion to challenge César Alberto Mendoza’s sentence, in which she alleged that Article 4 of Law 22,278 had not been correctly applied and that the sentence was arbitrary inasmuch as it did provide sufficient legal justification for the imposition of the most severe sentence allowed under Argentine criminal law. She alleged that the length of the sentence was excessive. 200. When the court that determines whether a remedy will proceed to a higher court dismissed the motion, she filed a complaint motion, which the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation dismissed on the grounds that it found no basis for the defense counsel’s claim that the court had failed to state the grounds for and justification of the sentence, and found no “deviation from the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 3 of Law 22,278.” As for the claim that the penalty was excessive, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation held that “the rules governing the individualization of the penalty are to be applied by the judges hearing the case and are therefore in principle not subject to review on cassation. The assessment is a function of the discretionary authorities of the trial court, except when it can be shown 153 that a ruling is arbitrary and thus in blatant violation of constitutional guarantees.” 201. Therefore, the only way the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation would review the sentence of life imprisonment given to César Alberto Mendoza was if his defense counsel somehow managed to prove that constitutional rights had been violated or that the sentence was manifestly arbitrary. The National Chamber of Criminal Cassation confined itself to evaluating whether there were any grounds and whether there were reasons to impose the sentence. It deemed that the allegation to the effect that the sentence was arbitrary had not been proved. It therefore found that it did not have the authority to conduct the requested review. The examination done by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation did not even consider whether the conviction and sentence were duly reasoned and substantiated, specifically the question of whether the sentence imposed was the proper one given the trial court’s authority under Article 4 of Law 22,278 and the victim’s particular circumstances. This argument was based on the well established premise of judicial practice at that time, which was that certain matters were the exclusive purview of the trial court or judge and hence not subject to review via a cassation motion. 202. Given the standards described above, a system in which the right of appeal is predicated on the existence of a violation of constitutional rights or a manifestly arbitrary decision is incompatible with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Irrespective of whether such violations or arbitrary decisions are present, every convicted person has a right to seek a review of different types of issues as facts and 153 Original petition filed on behalf of César Alberto Mendoza, received on June 17, 2002. Attachment 2: Court Rulings. Ruling of Section II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation, dated June 23, 200, Case No. 2544.