ruled on the adaptation of the criminal definition of forced disappearance in force under Peruvian legislation since 1992, to the text of the American Convention and the InterAmerican Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP), and it noted that so long as that criminal law is not correctly adapted, the State continues in its failure to comply with Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the ICFDP. 21 24. In this regard, this Court has held in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile, 22 that it is aware that domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, they are required to apply the provisions in force in legislation; however, when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its bodies, including its judges, are subject to it, forcing them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention and, consequently, the decisions of the Inter-American Court are not undermined by the application of rules that are contrary to its purpose and means. Domestic authorities at all levels are obligated to exercise ex officio “control of conformity with the Convention” between domestic standards and the American Convention, in the framework of their respective jurisdictions and relevant procedural regulations. Such control of “conformity with the Convention” also serves an important role in the compliance or implementation of a judgment of the Inter-American Court. 25. In this sense, the Constitutional Court of Peru has stated that: [T]he binding nature of the decisions of the [Inter-American] Court does not end with its operative paragraphs (which, only the State that is party to the proceedings can satisfy), but rather it extends to the merits or ratio decidendi, with the addition that, by operation of the [Fourth Final and Transitory Provision (CDFT (for its acronym in Spanish)) of the Constitution and Article V of the Preliminary Chapter of the [Code of Constitutional Procedure], in said forum, the judgment is binding on all public national powers, even in cases in which the Peruvian State was not involved in the proceedings. Indeed, the interpretive and applicative nature of the Inter-American Court’s Convention, recognized in Article 62(3) thereof, coupled with the mandate of the CDFT of the Constitution, makes the interpretation of the provisions of the Convention to be held in every proceeding binding upon all domestic government powers, including upon this Court.” 23 26. Given the aforementioned, the Court appreciates the measures adopted at the judicial level, notwithstanding, it finds that the State has not demonstrated that it has taken legislative measures to adapt the criminal legislation on forced disappearance, in the terms indicated by the Court, and thereby it asks the State to report specifically on the actions taken in attempts to implement the corresponding reforms, including a schedule wherein it notes the steps it will adopt in this regard. 20 In Operative Paragraph 12 of the Judgment in the Case of Gómez Palomino, the Court requested the State to adopt the necessary measures to reform, within a reasonable period, the criminal legislation in order to adapt it to international standards on matters of forced disappearance of persons, paying special attention to that provided in the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Paying close attention to Article 320 of the Criminal Code of Peru that defines a “Forced Disappearance,” as first, restrictive to “employees or public servants,” without including other forms of criminal participation recognized in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Second, it does not include “refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of persons and leaving no trace or evidence,” which allows the crime to be differentiated from others such as plagiarism or kidnapping. Lastly, it contains an ambiguous requirement, which is “duly proving” the forced disappearance, which makes interpretation difficult. 21 Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra, paras. 165-167. 22 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court on Contentious Administrative Matters”) V. Venezuela. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2012, Considering clause twenty-six. 23 Cf. Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court of Peru in the case file No. 2730-2006-PA/TC, on July 21, 2006, point 12, available at: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2006/02730-2006-AA.html 8