205. The above means that States must define enforced disappearance as an autonomous offense and also define the wrongful conducts of which it is composed. 334 This legal definition must be made taking into consideration Article II of the said Convention, which outlines the elements that the definition of this offense in domestic law should contain. The article in question stipulates that enforced disappearance is considered to be: the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. 206. In the Gómez Palomino case, this Court referred to the failure to adapt article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code 335 to international standards because: (a) article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code restricted the authorship of enforced disappearance to “public officials or servants.” This definition does not contain all the forms of criminal participation that are included in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and is thus incomplete; 336 (b) the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to provide information on the fate or whereabouts of the person in order not leave traces or evidence should be included in the definition of the offense, because this allows it to be distinguished from other offenses, with which it is usually related; however, article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code does not include this; 337 (c) the wording of article 320 of the Criminal Code indicates that the disappearance must be “duly proven,” and this gives rise to serious difficulties in its interpretation. First, it is not possible to know whether it should be duly proved before the offense is reported and, second, it is not clear who should execute the verification. 338 The latter “does not allow the State to comply fully with its international obligations.” 339 207. Regarding the allegations concerning plenary decision 09-2009/CJ-116 of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Peru of November 13, 2009, the Inter-American Court has already had the occasion to rule on this in the order on monitoring compliance with the judgment of July 5, 2011, in the case of Gómez Palomino, when it indicated that this decision does not comply with the obligation to amend domestic criminal law. 340 The Court recalls that “the enforced disappearance remains unchanged until the victim’s fate or whereabouts has been established, regardless of the modifications in the author’s status as a ‘public servant.’” 341 In cases such as this one in which the victim has been disappeared for 22 years, it is reasonable to suppose that the status required of the perpetrator may vary with the passage of time. In this regard, if the 334 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 181, and Case of Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 165. 335 Proven disappearance. Article 320. The public official or servant who deprives a person of his liberty, ordering or executing actions that result in his duly proven disappearance, shall be punished by imprisonment for no less than fifteen years and ineligibility to exercise civil rights, pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of article 36. 336 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 102. 337 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 104. 338 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 105. 339 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 108. 340 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on July 5, 2011, considering paragraph 36. 341 Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on July 5, 2011, para. 36, citing Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 240. 75