8 24. In paragraph 211 of the judgment, referenced by the State, the Court clearly indicated that the crime defined in Article 320 of the Criminal Code “was one of the definitions of an offense that was considered by the Fourth Supraprovincial Court and by the National Criminal Chamber during the criminal proceedings held in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction starting in 2004, and the definition of the offense for which Lieutenant Tello Delgado was prosecuted and of which he was acquitted in the judgment of December 17, 2008.” Similarly, the Court noted that, in “the new trial that culminated in the judgment delivered in 2011, the accused was also acquitted of the offense defined in article 320 of the Criminal Code […].” Therefore, according to what emerges from the judgment itself, the Court did not carry out a review of the national legislation in abstract, but the analysis is directly related to the facts of the case, since it deals with the criminal definition under which the criminal investigations were carried out. It constitutes the norm under which the configuration of the crime and the criminal responsibility of the possible perpetrators and participants are determined, all in light of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 25. Even when the Court concluded in its analysis that “no specific relationship has been revealed between the lack of effectiveness, diligence and thoroughness in the investigations and the failure to adapt the definition of the offense of enforced disappearance to the parameters of the Convention,” that determination was based on the actions of the officials from the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judicial authorities in the specific case. 8 The determination for the specific case does not overcome or invalidate the fact that the definition of the crime of enforced disappearance of persons in article 320 of the Penal Code continues to be in force, it was the crime under which Lieutenant Tello Delgado was investigated and tried, and it does not meet international standards.9 In addition to the foregoing, the Court reiterated that the plenary decision 09-2009/CJ-116 of November 13, 2009 “does not comply with the obligation to amend domestic criminal law,” 10 and held that it may constitute a source of impunity in cases of enforced disappearance of persons, especially those such as the present one in which the victim has been missing for 22 years. 11 26. In this context, the Court emphasizes that the inadequate definition of the crime of enforced disappearance, as well as the interpretation emanating from the aforementioned plenary decision, could have an effect in future investigations of cases of enforced disappearances. Thus, the Court considered it necessary to order the twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment, in which it reiterated the need to adapt the criminal definition as a guarantee of non-repetition with a general scope that has a specific objective that responds to the need for prevention towards future.12 B. Considerations about amnesty laws Arguments of the parties and the Commission 27. The State pointed out that, in paragraphs 216 and 217 of the judgment, the Court used the phrase “the assertion is correct” after having declared that the parties and the Commission stated that the archiving of the proceedings before the military jurisdiction in this specific case was not a Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 211. 8 9 Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, supra, para. 206. 10 Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, supra, para 207. 11 Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, supra, paras. 207 a 210. “Guarantees of non-repetition […] contribute to prevention”. Principle 23 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. UN Doc. A/Res/60/147. Resolution approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 2005, Principle 23. 12