8 However, some of the defendants were not tried in the end, nor their punishment enforced since they died, which is closely related to the lack of effectiveness and diligence in the investigations and proceedings initiated for the facts of the instant case10. 23. That, in addition, as it has been established in the Judgment and it is noted during the monitoring compliance therewith, at the domestic level, the criminal proceedings were conducted and, in some cases, the accused were convicted for offenses such as abduction, illegal deprivation of liberty, abuse of authority, association or conspiracy to commit a crime, injuries, coercion or threats and homicide, contained in the 1914 Penal Code or in the Penal Code in force since 1998. Despite the existence of relevant constitutional and international norms11, the lack of adequate classification of the crimes of torture and forced disappearance has been verified in the case at hand. It should be emphasized that, in these international proceedings, the facts of the case have been categorized as forced disappearance and torture, by both the State and the Court12, and that the disparity in the categorization of the facts at the domestic and international level was reflected in the criminal proceedings13, even though it was acknowledged that the facts have not remained in total impunity through the application of other categories of crime. The Court has pointed out that in order to guarantee, among other rights, the right to judicial recourse, and the right to know and access the truth, the State must fulfill its duty to investigate, try, and, when appropriate, punish and provide redress for grave violations of human rights. To achieve this objective, the State should observe due process and guarantee the principle of the proportionality of punishment and implementation of the judgment. As to this principle, the punishment which the State assigns to the perpetrator of illicit conduct should be proportional to the rights recognized by law and the culpability with which the perpetrated acted, which in turn should be established based on the nature and gravity of the events14. With regard to the principle of lenity based upon the existence of an earlier more lenient law, this principle should be harmonized with the principle of proportionality of punishment, such that criminal justice does not become illusory15. The State has not referred to these aspects. 24. That the Court recalls that, as it has been established in the Judgment, the preparation and execution of the detention and subsequent torture and disappearance of the victims could not have been perpetrated without the superior orders of the chiefs of 10 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 6, para. 119. 11 The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay makes reference to criminal types of torture or forced disappearance of people and the State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on March 9, 1990 and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on November 26, 1996. 12 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 6, para. 91. 13 For example, the judgment delivered in first instance in the proceeding opened in the case of Carlos José Mancuello qualifies certain acts as “torture and inhuman and degrading treatment” even though, when determining the appropriate classification of these acts, they were categorized as crimes of injury, coercion and abuse of authority, by applying the most favorable criminal norm owing to the inexistence of the crime of torture. Also, although it mentions the disappearances of the victims, it analyzed the existence of the corpse as evidence of death and this add an impact on the classification of the crime. This disparity also arises in the content of the extradition request issued by the court of first instance in the proceedings opened in the case of the Ramírez Villalba brothers. See, Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay; supra note 6, para. 92. 14 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 2002. Series C Nº 94, para.102; Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C º 155, para. 108 and Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 133, para. 70 and 133. 15 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 193 to 196.