4 7. That those States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. In this regard, Venezuela must adopt all necessary measures to effectively comply with the orders of the Court as stated in the Judgment of November 28, 2005. This obligation includes the duty of the state to inform about the measures taken to comply with the Court’s orders stated in said Judgment. The due observance of the state duty to inform the Court about the manner in which it is complying with its orders is essential to evaluate the compliance of the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That the State informed it had adopted the following measures to comply with the Judgment of the Court: a) In the case of the forced disappearance of Oscar José Blanco-Romero, on August 10, 2007 the Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ) (Constitucional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice) rendered a judgment “admitting the petition filed by the Fiscal Quinta del Ministerio Público (Fifth Public Prosecutor’s Office)”; “annulling the judgment of July 11, 2006 of the Sala de Casación Penal del TJS (Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice)”; “ordering the Trial Court Judge hearing the case before the filing of the appeal to continue with the criminal action against [those alleged to be responsible]” and stating that the forced disappearance of persons, a crime which is classified in section 181-A of the Venezuelan Penal Code, is “permanent” in nature. It should be noticed that the annulled judgment of July 11, 2006 had established that “the crime of forced disappearance of persons […] is an instant crime, but it has permanent effects”, it had ordered the case to be returned to its preliminary stage, annulling the line-up identifications made on June 8, 2001, and had ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to proceed with the accusation within the standards applicable on the date of occurrence of the facts investigated in the instant case, and had further ordered the Asamblea Nacional (National Congress) to review and amend the contents of section 181-A of the Penal Code. In that respect, the hearing held on July 4, 2009, regarding the monitoring of compliance with judgment (supra Having seen clause No 6), the State informed that on June 5, 2009 judgment was rendered as regards the disappearance of Mr. Blanco-Romero. However, said Judgment was not presented. b) “Regarding the cases of Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco RivasFernández, in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered to close the prosecutor’s records,” the State reaffirmed that “this does not mean that the criminal proceeding is closed too, since the provisions relating to criminal prosecution […] establish that cases may be reopened when new elements appear in the investigation.” c) Communications have been sent to the Fiscal General de la República (Attorney General of the Republic) requesting the compliance of the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the three victims in the instant case. d) Court Official Letters have been issued requesting “the approval of the publication in the Official Gazette and [at least in one] daily newspaper with national coverage, of the proven facts and merits [of the Judgment].”