6 Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino. a) Regarding operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment 22. Regarding the obligation to implement education programs provided for in the Judgment (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment), the State reported that the Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor submitted official letters on May 25, August 18 and September 2, 2009 to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education, whereby it requested, inter alia, "to order the necessary actions to address this case and submit a report on [their] compliance," which are awaiting response. 23. The representatives noted that the information submitted by the State shows requirements and steps taken in the education sector, "orders that have not been reiterated during the present year and that do not shown any results regarding compliance with this obligation." They noted that no documentation was presented showing that the next-of-kin of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino are receiving State benefits for education. 24. The Commission noted that the information provided by the State shows that it "does not appear to have adopted new, timely and appropriate measures for to the needs of victims so that they can effectively continue with their education." 25. In virtue of the comments made by the parties, the President-in-Office believes the Court must have complete and current information on the effective compliance with this aspect of the Judgment. a) Regarding operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment 26. Regarding the obligation to adopt the measures necessary to amend penal law, so as to make it compatible with international standards on forced disappearance of persons (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), the State did not submit any information in this regard. 27. The representatives referred to Bill No. 1707/2007-CR of October 11, 2007, filed to include crimes against international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the Criminal Code of Peru, including an amendment to the criminal classification of forced disappearance, which "was never approved." Also, it referred to Plenary Agreement No. 9-2009/CJ-116, of November 13, 2009, "passed by the Salas Penales y Transitorias de la Corte Suprema de la Republica del Perú [Criminal Chamber and Transitory Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru] regarding forced disappearance," which, although it shows a major effort by the State, through the judiciary, to overcome the problems arising from the application of the criminal classification of forced disappearance, in turn, "it has generated worrying impunity gaps related to temporary application and public official perpetrators, specifically with respect to events that occurred before April 8, 1991, when forced disappearance was included in the domestic legislation of Peru."5 5 In this regard, the representatives stated that under the provisions of the plenary agreement, proceedings for charges of forced disappearance for facts that occurred prior to April 8, 1991, will only be possible if the state agent, author of the disappearance, retains the status of public official and, otherwise, prosecution of such crimes will not be possible.