90 The crime of forced disappearance of persons is committed by the public official who, regardless of his participation in the legal or illegal arrest of one or several persons, causes or maliciously maintains their concealment under any type of detention. 320. In this sense, the Tribunal observes, first of all, that the mentioned stipulation restricts the commission of the crime of forced disappearance of persons to “public officials”. In that sense, regarding the active subject of the crime the Court has established that, in terms of Article II of the CIDFP, the provision that describes the elements of the crime shall guarantee the punishment of all the “authors, accomplices, and accessories of the crime of forced disappearance of persons,” whether agents of the State or “people or groups of people that act with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State.”308 321. The Court has reiterated that it is a basic principle of the law on State’s international responsibility, acknowledged by International Human Rights Law, that all States are internationally responsible for any act or omission of any of its powers or bodies in violation of the rights internationally enshrined.309 From this point of view, the legal classification of forced disappearance of persons of the Federal Criminal Code of Mexico presents an obstacle to the guarantee of punishment of “all the authors, accomplices, and accessories” arising from “any of the powers or bodies of the State.” In order to satisfy the minimum elements of the correct legal classification of the crime, the nature of the “State agent” shall be established in the most ample way possible. 322. Similarly, the Tribunal warns that Article 215-A of the mentioned Federal Criminal Code does not refer to “persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state,” In this regard, it mentioned that the punishment for the criminal actions of individuals can be concluded from Article 212, second paragraph, of the mentioned Federal Criminal Code, according to which “the same punishments established for the specific crime will be imposed on any person who participates in the perpetration of any of the crimes established in this Title or the following one.”310 Despite the aforementioned, it is not clear to this Tribunal if the intervention of “any person” as a participant in the crime, in the sense of the mentioned Code, is equivalent to the idea that the perpetrator of the same, that is, the active subject, is an individual that acts “with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state.” This idea acknowledges both the actions of individuals as perpetrators of the crime, under certain circumstances, and the different forms of participation of State agents in it. 323. On the other hand, as has been previously stated by this Tribunal, the forced disappearance of persons is characterized by the negative to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to offer information regarding the fate or whereabouts of the persons and by not leaving prints or evidence. Said element shall be present in the definition of the crime, because this allows a differentiation between forced disappearances and other crimes with which it is normally related, such as plagiarism or kidnapping and homicide, with the objective of applying the adequate evidentiary criteria and imposing the punishments that take into consideration the extreme seriousness of this crime to all those implied in it.311 In 308 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 101. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 24, paras. 164, 169, and 170; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 60; and, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 140. 309 310 Article 366 of the Federal Criminal Code specifies those punishments (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(3), pages 86 and 87). 311 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 51, para. 103; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, paras. 196 and 197. In the same sense, the expert opinion offered by Mr. Santiago Corchera Cabezut before notary public (affidavit) on June 19, 2009 (dossier of merits, volume IV, folio 1251).