28. In addition, the Court appreciates the efforts made by the State to amend article 57 of the Code of Military Justice. Despite this, the Court reiterates what it stated in the Order on compliance in this case issued on May 19, 2011, to the effect that the initiative presented to the Congress of the Union on October 19, 2010, “is insufficient because it does not comply fully with the standards indicated in the Judgment,” since it would allow the Military Public Prosecution Service to investigate crimes perpetrated against civilians by military personnel, and because “the said reform only establishes that the military jurisdiction will not be competent [to deal with] forced disappearance of persons, torture and rape committed by military personnel.”20 29. Nevertheless, the Court underlines the efforts made by the State to make the definition of the crime of forced disappearance contained in article 215A of the Federal Criminal Code compatible with the relevant international standards. However, the Court reiterates that, in order to comply with this aspect of the Judgment, “the State should not merely ‘present’ the corresponding bill, but also ensure its prompt approval and entry into force, according to the respective procedures established in domestic law.”21 The Court also recalls that the said bill must respect the corresponding criteria described in the Judgment in this case.22 Lastly, based on the foregoing, the Court asked the State to forward updated information on the effective implementation of the reforms that were ordered to the Code of Military Justice and to the Federal Criminal Code. D. Obligation to implement, within a reasonable time and with the respective budgetary allocation, permanent programs and courses relating to the analysis of the case law of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights in relation to the limits of the military criminal justice system, as well as a training program on the proper investigation and prosecution of acts that constitute forced disappearance of persons (twelfth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 30. The State advised that it had offered various training sessions, courses, seminars and conferences to the judges of the Judiciary of the Federation, the agents of the Public Prosecution Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGR), and the judges and members of the Defense Secretariat (SEDENA) and the Navy Secretariat (SEMAR). 31. Regarding the implementation of the training sessions for officials of the Federation’s Judiciary, the State advised that, under the ruling issued on July 14, 2011, in the case file “Various matters 912/2010” (supra considering paragraph 5), the Plenary of the Supreme                                                              20 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, twenty-first and twenty-second considering paragraphs. 21 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 344. 22 In the Judgment, the Court referred to two element of this provision that were not compatible with the ICFDP. First, it indicated that “the said provision restricts the authorship of the crime of forced disappearance of persons to ‘public servants,’” while Article II of the ICFDP indicates that States must “ensure the punishment of all the ‘authors, accomplices and accessories to the crime of forced disappearance of persons’, whether they are agents of the State or ‘persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State.’” The Judgment also establishes that “the forced disappearance of persons is characterized by the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to provide information on the fate or whereabouts of the individuals,” and that “[t]his element must be present in the definition of the crime, because it allows forced disappearance to be distinguished from other illegal acts with which it is usually related, such as kidnapping or abduction, and murder, so that appropriate probative criteria can be applied and punishments imposed on all those implicated in its perpetration that take into consideration the extreme gravity of this crime.” Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 320 to 324. 11