CCPR/C/112/D/1968/2010 7.8 The Committee notes that the review procedure in the case of the authors is subjected, through various amendments of the relevant legislation, to such restrictive conditions that the prospect of release seems extremely remote, also bearing in mind the “never to be released” recommendation made by Justice Newman of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 18 September 1990. Furthermore, the release, if it ever took place, would be based on the impending death or physical incapacitation of the authors, rather than on the principles of reformation and social rehabilitation contained in article 10, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 21 (1992), in which it indicated that no penitentiary system should be only retributory and that it should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the prisoner. The Committee emphasizes that this principle applies with particular force in connection with juveniles. 7.9 The Committee notes the observations provided by the State party regarding the fact that the authors have benefited substantially from prison programmes and policies designed to further their personal development, encourage social contact with the outside world and provide skills which would assist in their reintegration into the community if released (see paras. 4.16 and 4.17 above). The Committee notes in that regard that the State party has not put forward any argument suggesting that rehabilitation would not succeed in the the case of the authors, based, for instance, on psychological and psychiatric assessments of them. 7.10 The Committee notes the argument of the State party, in connection with article 24 of the Covenant, that its criminal justice system provides appropriate protection to juveniles, including special procedures regarding pretrial detention, trial and imprisonment. The Committee does not question the existence of such measures of protection and their application to the authors at the time of the trial and during the first years of their imprisonment. However, as for articles 7 and 10, paragraph 3, the main claim under article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant remains the imposition of life sentences on the authors without real possibility of release. 7.11 Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant requires that States parties afford children such measures of protection as are required by their status as minors. That provision takes into account the vulnerability and immaturity of children, as well as their capacity for development. The entitlement of children to special consideration also informs article 10, paragraphs 2 (b) and 3, and article 6, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which prohibits the imposition of death sentences for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The Committee considers that treating juvenile offenders in a manner appropriate to their age and legal status precludes a definitive conclusion that a juvenile’s actions make that person incapable of rehabilitation and undeserving of release, regardless of any future personal and social development, for the entire length of a lifetime. The Committee recalls in that regard article 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that “neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” While the main role of the Committee is to monitor the implementation of the Covenant, the Committee considers this provision, which is included in a treaty that has been ratified or acceded to almost universally, including by the State party, as a valuable source informing the interpretation of the Covenant in the present case. 7.12 Taking into account the lengthy period prescribed before the authors are entitled to apply for release on parole, the restrictive conditions imposed by the law to obtain such release and the fact that the authors were minors at the time they committed their crimes, the Committee considers that the life sentences, as currently applied to the authors, do not meet the obligations of the State party under article 7, read together with articles 10, paragraph 3, and 24 of the Covenant. Having reached that conclusion the Committee will not examine the claims of violation of article 15, paragraph 1. 17