the restriction of constitutional guarantees.” In addition, it indicated “that the Ombudsman […] has the authority to file [the application] […] when appropriate.” The State also indicated that the amparo proceeding “is oral and public, brief, free of charge, and exempt from formalities [...], the competent judicial authority having full powers to restore the legal rights infringed.” In addition, it indicated that, “in Judgment No. 165 (13/02/2001), the Constitutional Chamber, as the ultimate interpreter of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic, made an extensive interpretation of the provisions contained in both the Constitution and the laws concerning the application for protection of liberty and personal guarantees.”12 In brief, it declared that, from the normative and interpretive development of the Constitution and from the law, it can be seen that the State admits the application for habeas corpus “as broadly as possible.” 18. The representatives indicated that the information presented by the State “reveals the limited jurisprudential development made by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on the matter of habeas corpus.” They also noted that “no bill existed to adapt the application for habeas corpus to the parameters required [by] the Court” on the National Assembly’s 2009 legislative program and this would constitute failure to comply with the State’s obligations. In this regard, the representatives indicated that, “under domestic law, bills may be presented on the [...] initiative of the Executive,” a mechanism that “the State has not used either.” 19. The Commission observed that, although the State’s report of December 2006 described some measures undertaken to ensure that the Legislature complied with this aspect of the judgment, in subsequent reports, the State “failed to provide any information on the progress of this bill.” Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to require the State to submit detailed information on the measures adopted or planned to comply with this obligation. 20. Regarding the State’s observations, the Court recalls that, although this measure of reparation requires the State to adopt “the legislative or any other measures that may be required to ensure that applications for habeas corpus can be implemented effectively in Venezuela in situations of forced disappearance,” it is also certain that “[t]o this end, the State must take into account the scope of habeas corpus in light of international norms on the matter and, in particular, the case law of this Court, in the sense that the said remedy constitutes the appropriate means to guarantee the liberty of the individual, and to monitor respect for his or her life and integrity, as well as to prevent their disappearance or uncertainty about their place of detention.”13 In this regard, the Court finds that the State has not provided information or documentation showing that it has taken specific, effective measures to comply with this aspect, because the jurisprudence cited does not reveal that this is appropriate and necessary to meet the requirements of the judgment. 21. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that this aspect remains pending; therefore the State must adopt all necessary measures to comply with it promptly and effectively. In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate that the treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding on all their powers and organs (supra fourth 12 According to the information presented by the State, “the criteria of the Constitutional Chamber is that the admissibility of the application for habeas corpus depends on the detention having been imposed by an administrative, police or judicial authority, in violation of constitutional norms, and only in those cases in which the authorities exceed their legal powers or owing to the duration of the detention, can the deprivation of liberty be considered illegal.” In addition, according to the State, this citation of the Constitutional Chamber constitutes reiterated jurisprudence. 13 Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 8, para. 104. 7