5 will continue to fail to comply with its international obligations. Likewise, they recalled the Court’s analysis in the cases of Gómez Palomino v. Peru and Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, in which they alleged that “it was not considered whether or not the inadequate definition of enforced disappearance had a direct impact on the facts of [the] previously cited cases,” but rather, “once it considered proven the enforced disappearance of the victim, it proceeded to examine the case in light of the obligations contained in Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons”. Consequently, the representatives maintained that the Court did not review the national legislation in abstract, as the State alleges, but that it was the result of a specific violation, that is, the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Obligations arise from this violation and the State must comply in accordance with articles 2 of the Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which are the same "the Peruvian State has been failed to comply" since the aforementioned cases of Gómez Palomino and Anzualdo Castro. Therefore, the representatives observed that the implementation of reparations, such as the adaptation of the criminal definition of enforced disappearance to international standards, constitutes a reparation “that seeks to ensure that similar acts do not occur in the future, so its scope is not limited to the specific case, but to other cases that may occur in the future, as a result of the aforementioned breach of the obligations […] outlined.” 18. On this same issue, the Commission noted that the requirement established in article 320 of the Criminal Code that the disappearance be “duly proven” could constitute “a source of impunity in all cases of enforced disappearance of persons, since it is the rule upon which the evidence is assessed and the criminal responsibility of those possibly involved is determined.” Likewise, the Commission clarified that “the fact that in the specific case the way in which this rule affected the results is not explicit in the minutes of the case file or in the judicial decisions issued, does not rule out that the existence of the norm could have had a general effect on the evaluation of the judicial authorities and, particularly, may have a future effect with respect to the investigations that must be carried out in compliance with the judgment.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission found no contradiction between the Court's determination in paragraph 211 of the judgment and the order to adapt the national legislation as a guarantee of non-repetition for the future. Considerations of the Court 19. In section “B.4. Failure to define the crime of enforced disappearance appropriately” of the judgment, the Court determined the following: 204. The Court has already referred to the general obligation of the States to adapt their domestic laws to the American Convention. This is also applicable in the case of the signature of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, because it is derived from the customary norm according to which a State that has acceded to an international treaty must amend its domestic law as necessary in order to ensure the execution of the obligations assumed. 205. The above means that States must define enforced disappearance as an autonomous offense and also define the wrongful conducts of which it is composed. This legal definition must be made taking into consideration Article II of the said Convention, which outlines the elements that the definition of this offense in domestic law should contain. The article in question stipulates that enforced disappearance is considered to be: the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. 206. In the Gómez Palomino case, this Court referred to the failure to adapt article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code to international standards because: (a) article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code restricted the authorship of enforced disappearance to “public officials or servants.” This definition does not contain all the