7 17. At the public hearing of 07 September 1996 before the Court, the Colombian Government itself referred clearly to the matter at issue in two moments (alluding even to national initiatives for the revision of Law 15 of 1992 on habeas corpus), 14 indicating that "there [was] no divergence" between itself and the Inter-American Commission in respect of the subject of habeas corpus.15 Moreover, in its brief of 26 July 1996, the Government informed the Court inter alia that it was "progressing with the initiatives tending to place once again before Congress" the text of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as well as to incorporate that category of crime into its domestic criminal legislation. 16 I thus see no reason for the Court not to consider the request of the Commission 17 for nonpecuniary measures of reparation.18 In the present Judgment on reparations, the Court has failed to extract the juridical consequences of its own determination of violation of Article 1(1) (in combination with Articles 7 and 4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which it devoted no less than five paragraphs in its Judgment on the merits.19 18. In one of those paragraphs, in the aforementioned Judgment on the merits (of 08 December 1995) in the present Caballero Delgado and Santana case, the Court in fact linked its determination of non-compliance by the respondent State with the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the Convention to the measures of reparation (paragraph 59).20 That was not the first time in which the Court acted this way: in previous cases, the Court determined that the general duty to guarantee the protected rights implies the obligation of the States Parties to organize all the structures of public power in order to secure juridically the full 14 Mentioned in paragraph 54 of the present Judgment. 15 Verbatim Records of the Public Hearing Held by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on 07 September 1996 - Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Phase of Reparations, pp. 31 and 15. 16 Page 4 of the aforementioned brief. 17 And of the petitioners in the case on behalf of the victims. 18 It may be recalled, in this connection, that, in the cases concerning Honduras (merits), the Court, in determining the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus in the cases of forced or involuntary disappearances at issue, in a way revised the formal "requirements" of the national law, demonstrating their insufficiencies. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, loc. cit. supra n. (1), paragraphs 65-77; Godínez Cruz Case, loc. cit. supra n. (1), paragraphs 68-82. 19 Paragraphs 55 until 59, besides operative paragraph n. 1 of the Judgment on the merits, of 08 December 1995, in the present Caballero Delgado and Santana case. 20 Besides having determined the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention (paragraph 59, and operative paragraph n. 1 of that Judgment), the Court pondered that "to guarantee fully the rights recognized by the Convention, it is not sufficient that the Government undertakes an investigation and tries to sanction those guilty; rather it is also necessary that all this activity of the Government culminates in the reparation to the injured party, which in this case has not occurred" (paragraph 58). And the Court added that "in the present case the reparation ought to consist in the continuation of the judicial proceedings to inquire into the disappearance of Isidro Caballero-Delgado and María del Carmen Santana and the punishment of those responsible in accordance with Colombian domestic law" (paragraph 69).