10 applicable, the State shall deliver the mortal remains. Otherwise, the State shall inform this Court about any data required, different from those provided by the next of kin, as well as the reasons why such data are required, in order to start the exhumation process. 27. That the State shall carry out the exhumation and identification process and the delivery of the mortal remains rigorously, by competent, independent and impartial professionals, using the most appropriate techniques and instruments to that end.22 The above is essential not only for the exhumation and identification of the bodies but also in order to obtain the necessary evidence for the investigation and further punishment of those responsible for this crime. 28. That the State must inform about any specific measures adopted for the effective progress of the exhumation and identification of the bodies of José León Ayala Gualdrón and Edgar José Peña Marín, including the measures regarding the necessary economic resources for the attorneys and other officials in charge of this case in order to provide them with the necessary means to carry out the exhumation and identification process. Thus, and following the State’s commitment (supra Considering clause 23), the exhumation and identification process and, if applicable, the delivery of the victims’ bodies shall be carried out in 2010. * * * 29. That as regards to the obligation to adapt, within a reasonable time, its domestic legislation according to the terms of the American Convention (operative paragraph 9 of the Judgment), the State informed that on July 23, 2007 “it meant to adapt its juridical framework […] by approving the Organic Code of the Penitentiary System to unify the legislation in force governing this matter in a separate manner.” Independent of this, the State underscored that Venezuela “abides by a [C]onstitution enshrining all civil and political rights[,] it has a very new national police law [whose] rules are in accordance with the most modern human rights legislation […] [and above all] the restrictive use of force[,] it has a [very modern] criminal procedural code recently amended and […] a new organic law governing the Attorney General which has been in force for over a year and [whose] Article 39 […] establishes, inter alia[,] the attorneys’ obligations […] regarding the specific protection of the procedural penitentiary system.” 30. That according to the representatives, “the President of the Republic[,] although he is fully empowered to that end, has not issued any decree-law for the organization and operation of the penitentiary system and there was no public official information available either that the National Assembly has included any legislative initiative on its agenda for 2009 regarding [the obligation to adapt the corresponding domestic legislation].” For the representatives, the State makes “reference to constitutional precepts according to which it acknowledges the [State’s] obligation to secure the normal and effective operation of the penitentiary system”, when in fact “there is lack of specific information about the process to adapt the rules, following the ambits and terms in the Judgment.” 31. That for the Commission, “the only information [from the State] is limited to the unification of the penitentiary code”, although the Court’s order regarding adapting the rules 22 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merit and Reparations. Judgment of November 26, 2003. C Series No. 102, para. 127; Case of Caracazo V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 23, 2009, considering clauses 11 to 13, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 16, para. 115.