6 representatives concluded that “the State of Panama has not taken steps to ensure that this measure is implemented appropriately”; but rather, it is implemented “as a series of fragmented activities that are carried out at the request of the beneficiaries, without any initial diagnosis having been made accompanied by a treatment plan.” 24. For its part, the Commission indicated that Panama “has not adopted sufficient measures to comply with this obligation,” in particular “the lack of specialized psychological care,” “the absence of a diagnosis” of the needs for medical attention, and the “failure to decide on the place to provide the health care service to Graciela De León Rodríguez.” 25. The President finds that the Court requires more information on the medical and psychological care that is being provided and, in particular on the way in which it has been implemented, inasmuch as it is intended as a reparation for the human rights violations attributed to the State. * * * 26. Regarding the obligation to define the offenses of forced disappearance of persons and torture (sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State indicated that the Ministry of the Interior and Justice had forwarded to the National Assembly a “bill [...] amending and adding articles to the Penal Code in relation to the offenses of forced disappearance and torture.” 27. The representatives observed that the wording proponed in the bill “does not resolve all the problems indicated by the Court in its judgment, regarding both the offense of forced disappearance and the offense of torture, and in the case of the latter, the divergence from the international formulas is even more evident and of greater concern.” 28. The Commission indicated that it “should only be considered that this operative paragraph has been complied with when the law is approved by means of the constitutional procedures in force, and provided that the problems noted by the Court in its judgment have been overcome.” In addition, the Commission stated that “the wording of the bill could resolve four problems with the actual definition of forced disappearance as an offense that were identified in the judgment; namely, the application only to “unlawful detentions,” “the disjunction between the elements of detention and the refusal to provide information on the whereabouts of the victim,” “the failure to include acknowledgement of the victim’s detention,” and “the failure to establish the continuing or permanent nature of the offense.” Nevertheless, the Commission “remains concerned about the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the gravity of the offense.” Furthermore, regarding the offense of torture, the Commission indicated that “the text of the bill does not establish clearly the elements that constitute the offense of torture and continues to limit its application only to persons who are detained.” 29. The President finds it necessary to have more information on the actual status of the legislative processing of the bill presented by the Government. In addition, he finds it necessary to have information on the amendments that may have been made in relation to the initial proposal in order to adapt it fully to the considerations set out by the Court in its judgment. * * *