88 provision included in Article IX of the mentioned treaty, to which Mexico has clearly been compelled. * * * 313. Based on the aforementioned, the Court considers that the investigation of the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco has not been diligent, has not assumed in its totality as a duty characteristic of the State, nor has it been effectively addressed to the identification, prosecution, and eventual punishment of all those responsible or to the determination of the whereabouts of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco. Likewise, the Tribunal considers that upon expanding the competence of the military jurisdiction to crimes that are not strictly related to military discipline or with juridical rights characteristic of the military realm, the State has infringed the right to a competent tribunal of the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, who also did not have a recourse that allowed them to contest the prosecution of the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo RadillaPacheco by the military jurisdiction. All this in detriment to their right to know the truth. 314. Due to the aforementioned, the Tribunal concludes that the State violated the rights acknowledged in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same and I subparagraphs a) and b) and IX of the CIDFP, as well as with Articles I(d) and XIX of the CIDFP.303 X NON-COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 2 (DOMESTIC LEAL EFFECTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 7(6) THEREOF,304 AND OF ARTICLES I d) AND III OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS305 A. Definition of the crime of forced disappearance of persons 315. The representatives argued that the State has failed to comply with its obligation to adequately define the crime of forced disappearance, since “[t]he elements of the crime […]described in the Federal Criminal Code do not coincide in several aspects with the definition contemplated in Article II of the [CIDFP], as stipulated by the Court’s jurisprudence.” They argued that “[t]his has allowed that the case of Mr. Rosendo Radilla 303 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 61. 304 Article 7(6) of the American Convention states, in what is relevant, that: Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 305 Article III of the CIDFP states that: The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.