53 the case of Gómez Palomino, the Court had the opportunity to examine and render a decision on the adaptation of the criminal definition of forced disappearance in force under the Peruvian legislation since the year 1992 to the text of the American Convention and the ICFDP209. 166. In the instant case, the Court deems that no specific connection between the lack of effectiveness, diligence and completeness in the investigations and the unsuitability of the criminal type of forced disappearance to the conventional parameters has been proven. It is noteworthy that the investigations carried out by the authorities have dealt with the facts and framed them within the crime of forced disappearance, considering even its insufficient content; none of the decisions prove that, due to that incorrect classification, the State’s Attorney have shifted the burden of the proof onto the petitioners. Hence, it seems not possible for the Court to note, and the representatives neither specifically assert it, that in the instant case the incorrect classification had been a specific element that hindered the effective development of the investigation or proceedings instituted due to the forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. 167. Without detriment to the foregoing, so long as that criminal law is not correctly adapted, the State continues failing to comply with Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the ICFDP210. * * * 168. In the instant case, more than 15 years have elapsed since the forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, yet the whole truth about the facts or his whereabouts has not been determined. Since the moment of his disappearance, stat agents have adopted measures to hide the truth of what happened: apart from the use of the secret detention center in the basements of SIE, it has been possible to verify the lack of diligence in the investigations, specially due to the initial decision to close the criminal investigation, the groundless rejection of the writ of habeas corpus and the lack of prosecution of all the perpetrators and participants of the facts. The Tribunal finds that the domestic criminal proceedings have not provided effective recourses to determine the fate or whereabouts of the victim, or to guarantee the right to access justice and know the truth, by means of the investigation and possible punishment of the responsible and the full reparation of the consequences that resulted from the violations. The existing legal framework, after the disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, has not favored the effective investigation into the facts. 169. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 therein and I(b) and III of the ICFDP, to the 209 At that time, the Court deemed that, as to the wrongdoers and the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the detained person, the classification of Article 320 of the Criminal Code was incomplete, given the fact that it did not contain all the forms of criminal involvement provided in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, this is, state officials or individuals; it did not include within its elements, the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to provide information about the fate or whereabouts of detained persons and leaving no trace or evidence; finally, while the phrase “duly proven disappearance” complicates statutory “construction” thereof, since it was not possible to know whether such due proof must precede the criminal report or complaint or who should produce such proof either: the victim itself or his or her next-of-kin, or the State. Cf. Gomez Palomino V. Peru, supra note 63, paras. 98-110. 210 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 1, 2009, considering clauses 29-32.