5 e) The Legislative Power has been requested to comply with the obligation to adopt any legislative or other measures that are necessary to secure that the habeas corpus remedy may be exercised efficiently in Venezuela in cases of forced disappearance. However, the State pointed out that “the habeas corpus [in Venezuela] does not harm any of the rights and guarantees enshrined both in the Constitution and in the international instruments for the protection of human rights.” f) By the Judgment of July 11, 2005, the Sala de Casación Penal del TSJ (Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice), “ the Asamblea Nacional (National Congress) was requested to review and amend the contents of section 181-A of the Penal Code in force.” g) Several activities have been carried out to “encourage a culture of respect and commitment to human rights” within the Guardia Nacional (National Guard), the Armed Forces and the Dirección General Sectorial de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención (Intelligence and Preventive Services Sector Bureau) (hereinafter “DISIP”.) In that respect, during the private hearing (supra Having seen clause No 6,) the State informed about a series of measures intended to comply with this obligation. The State acknowledged it had not sent such information to the Court and undertook to do so; and h) As regards the payment of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of the costs and expenses, a “project and financial survey […] has been submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for its consideration and further submission to the President of the Republic for approval.” Furthermore, during the private hearing (supra Having seen clause No 6,) the State informed that the budget to pay the indemnifications was pending approval. 9. That the representatives of the victims declared the following regarding the compliance with the judgment: a) The “investigations in the cases of Oscar Blanco-Romero, Francisco Rivas and Roberto Hernández remain in the most absolute impunity.” In the case of the disappearance of Mr. Blanco-Romero, the decision of the Sala de Casación Penal del TSJ (Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice) of July 11, 2006 constitutes an “extremely serious precedent,” since it decided that the forced disappearance of persons is a crime of instant execution.” Furthermore, they stated that in such process “the hearing of the Oral and Public Trial had been postponed eight (8) times, mostly due to the absence of the district attorney or the accused defense attorneys.” As regards the Judgment of June 5, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause 6,) the representatives pointed out that it had neither been notified to them nor published. b) In the cases of Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco RivasFernández, “the cases are closed, and this situation has not changed after the Court’s Judgment.” “No official information has been received regarding any steps taken to identify c) the remains of [the three victims”.] d) Despite the expiration of the date, no publication has been made in the Official Gazette and in another daily newspaper of national coverage regarding the proven