10 36. Hence, the Tribunal recalls the terms established in paragraph 259 of the Judgment in the sense that the State must define both offenses “in the terms and in compliance with the obligations assumed under the Convention on Forced Disappearance and the Convention against Torture, as of March 28, 1996, and August 28, 1991, respectively.” In this way, the Court notes that the instant obligation will be considered fulfilled once the bill becomes an act of the Republic and comes into force, which should be realized within a reasonable time. That, in such way, in order to ensure the useful effect of the provisions of the American Convention and its own effects, according to the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Court urges the State to adopt the measures necessary to adapt its domestic rules14. 37. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that, in relation to the compliance with this aspect, it requires organized, detailed, thorough, and updated information from the State in order to be able to learn about the processing of the new bill and, if applicable, the subsequent approval by the National Assembly. Furthermore, taking into account the presentation of said new bill within the framework of the private hearing, the Tribunal requests the respective observations of the Commission and the representatives as to the content of such bill and its compliance with what was ordered in the Judgment, according to the terms established in Operative Paragraph three of this Order. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That, in accordance with the terms of Considering clauses 9, 13 and 17 of this Order, the State has fully complied with the following operative paragraphs of the Judgment: a) pay Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, the amount established in paragraph 233 of this judgment, as compensation for pecuniary damage (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment); b) pay Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, the amount established in paragraph 239 of this judgment, as compensation for nonpecuniary damage (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment); c) Publish, once, in the official gazette and in another newspaper with widespread circulation, Chapters I, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of […] Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and its operative paragraphs (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment); Judgment. Order of November 16, 2009, considering clause thirty-nine; Case of Carpio Nicolle V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of July 1, 2009; Considering Clause fourteen. 14 See Caballero Delgado and Santana V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003; Considering Clause nine and ten; Case of Fermín Ramirez V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008; Considering Clause forty-six; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause forty-six.