50 233. The Commission observes that the petitioners alleged that César Alberto Mendoza was prevented from filing a complaint motion with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation when he was not personally notified that the special federal appeal filed on his behalf had been denied; his court-appointed attorney had failed to so inform him and had unilaterally decided not to pursue any further challenges. According to the petitioners, the victim did not learn of the decision until months later. 234. As noted in the section on proven facts, the State did not submit arguments to rebut these allegations and provided no document to show that César Alberto Mendoza had in fact been personally notified of the decision that denied the special federal appeal filed on his behalf. Nor did it attempt to show that the court-appointed attorney in the case had advised him of the decision. 160 235. Based on the information available, the Commission deems that in the case of César Alberto Mendoza, both these factors worked to prevent him from defending himself by exhausting every possible avenue allowed under the law. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated his right of defense, recognized in article 8(2), subparagraphs (d) and (e) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof. 236. In the cases of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, the petitioners alleged that it was months before they learned of the decisions that denied the complaint motions filed on their behalf, owing to the fact that they were not personally notified of those decisions and their respective defense counsels did not bring the decisions to their attention. As previously observed, the failure to deliver personal notification can be prejudicial to the person’s right of self defense. However, unlike what happened in the case of César Alberto Mendoza, the Commission observes that the decision of which Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza were not personally notified was the final decision that cannot be appealed. The Commission thus does not have sufficient information to conclude that a violation of the right of self defense occurred that was prejudicial to them. 237. Finally, the petitioners alleged that Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal was denied the opportunity to file additional appeals to challenge the Mendoza Supreme Court’s decision that denied the cassation motion because he was not personally notified of the decision and his court-appointed defense counsel did not bring it to his attention. According to the petitioners, it was a few months later that the victim learned of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Commission does not have any documentation indicating that Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal was personally notified or learned of the ruling. Consistent with its analysis of the case of César Alberto Mendoza, the Commission deems that the Argentine State failed to shoulder its burden of proof. Because other appeals and motions remained to be exhausted, the Commission deems that the failure to personally notify Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal and the failure of his court-appointed defense counsel to advise him of the decision constituted violations of his right of defense, in violation of Article 8(2), subparagraphs (d) and (e) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations undertaken in Article 1(1) of that instrument. 160 Here the Commission recalls the Court’s case law on the burden of proof lies when it is alleged that the State failed to afford certain Convention-protected guarantees. Specifically, the Court wrote the following on the guarantees provided under Article 7 of the Convention: In the instant case, the victim has no available means of proving this fact. His allegation is of a negative nature, and indicates the inexistence of a fact. The State declares that the information about the reasons for the arrest was provided. This is an allegation of a positive nature and, thus, susceptible of proof. Moreover, if it is recalled that, on other occasions, the Court has established that “in proceedings on human rights violations, the defense of the State cannot be based on the impossibility of the plaintiff to provide evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State,” this leads to the conclusion that the burden of proof on this point corresponds to the State. See, I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 73. By analogy the same reasoning applies in the case of a failure to observe the guarantees recognized in Article 8(2) of the American Convention.