specific response to the Court’s request for information, or to the information provided by the representatives concerning the four proceedings they had filed, but merely forwarded the very general information provided by the provincial authorities. Indeed, in its response, Argentina stated that “diverse measures have been taken by the province,” without describing the supposed measures. It added that “the conduct of the provincial officials was evaluated,” without indicating the form of the supposed “evaluation,” the authority that had conducted it, the procedure used, or which official or officials had been “evaluated.” Similarly, it continued its response indicating that “several of the officials involved no longer belong to the Judiciary,” without informing the Court who those officials were. Lastly, the State referred to the supposed access to justice of the victims, which bears no relationship to the Court’s request for information; also, it did not explain the “significant progress” made in the legislative aspect related to the Court’s request for information. 172. In previous cases, faced with specific violations, the Court has established that the State must file, as appropriate, disciplinary, administrative or criminal actions in accordance with domestic law, against those responsible for the different procedural and investigative irregularities. 119 In view of the absence of information and exactitude in Argentina’s response, the Court orders that, as of notification of this Judgment and within a reasonable time, the State must verify, in accordance with the pertinent disciplinary norms, whether the conduct of the public officials indicated by the representatives (supra para. 169), who intervened in the different domestic proceedings, was in conformity with the law and, as appropriate, establish the corresponding responsibilities under the law, forwarding the Court detailed and individualized information on the results of the investigations conducted, together with supporting documentation. 2.2 Adaptation of domestic law 173. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to prevent and punish the sale of children, in order to fulfill its obligations under the American Convention. 174. The representatives requested this measure of reparation in similar terms to those of the Inter-American Commission. 175. The State did not refer specifically to this claim for reparation. However, it forwarded the information on the adaptation of its domestic criminal law that had been requested by the Court when this was time-barred (supra paras. 7 and 12). 176. In this case, the Court has concluded that the State failed to comply with its obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law by not using all means, including the criminal jurisdiction, to prevent the “sale” of a child, for any purpose or in any form, in accordance with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 19, 8(1) and 25(1) and 1(1) of this instrument to the detriment of Mr. Fornerón and his daughter M (supra para. 144). 177 Consequently, based on the obligation derived from Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 19 of this instrument, the State must adopt the necessary measures to criminalize the “sale” of children, so that the act of surrendering a child in exchange for remuneration or any other compensation, for any purpose or in any form, is a 119 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 233(d), and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 214. 47