sentences that consider the extreme gravity of this crime may be imposed on all those implicated.”18 Consequently, the Court will limit its analysis to these two issues. 28. The Court affirms that in its proposed reform, the State has incorporated the elements indicated by the Tribunal for an adequate definition of the crime of forced disappearance in accordance with the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. It is evident from the information provided by the State that this crime can be committed by private individuals when acting “under the order, or with the acquiescence or support” of a public servant. Additionally, the proposed reform sets forth that the crime can be committed by any public servant or private individual who, among other things, “refuses to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to provide information as to his whereabouts.” In this regard, the Court takes note of the reform initiative proposed by the State to amend section 215A of the Federal Criminal Code in accordance with the standards specified in the Judgment and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, and it will continue to monitor the aforementioned legislative reform procedure until it is fully compatible with said standards. E. Obligation to implement permanent programs or courses on the analysis of the jurisprudence of the inter-American System of Human Rights Protection regarding the limits of military criminal jurisdiction, as well as a training program on the proper investigation and prosecution of acts that constitute forced disappearance of persons (Operative Paragraph 12 of the Judgment) 29. The State indicated that the Attorney General’s Office “is working on the creation, implementation and release of a training and/or specialization program for public servants who are part of the Office of the General Coordinator of Investigation that addresses the orders of the Court.” It affirmed that “a training session led by the expert Santiago Corcuera, former member of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, has been scheduled for the first two months of 2011 for the personnel of the Office of the General Coordinator of Investigation.” Additionally, it reported that “ministerial personnel of the Attorney General’s Office attended the Central American Seminar on the Search for Disappeared Persons and Forensic Investigations: Implementation of the International Council of Minimum Principles and Norms regarding psycho-social work in cases of [F]orced Disappearance, Arbitrary Executions, and Forensic Investigation of Grave Human Rights Violations, held on September 16, 17, and 18, 2010, in the city of Antigua, Guatemala.” This seminar “contributed to the reaffirmation of the knowledge of those public servants who attended for the purpose of carrying out excavations” in order to locate Mr. Radilla Pacheco. Moreover, the State referred to a series of activities carried out as part of the “permanent training in human rights” offered by the Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, the State referred to activities carried out by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation for the promotion, diffusion, and application of human rights, as well as "activities carried out by the Federal Council of the Judiciary." 30. The representatives affirmed that although “the activities indicated by the State are positive under the framework of the general training in human rights that all public servants should receive, […] they do not have anything to do with that ordered by the InterAmerican Court [in the Judgment].” They stated that the activities “were not aimed at the Armed Forces,” they “did not specifically discuss the analysis of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System […] in relation to the limits of the military criminal jurisdiction,” and "they did not discuss the proper investigation and adjudication of facts that constitute 18 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 323. 11