49 Penal Code, which entered into force in May 2008. It is thus relevant to note that the InterAmerican Commission submitted the application in this case on January 23, 2007, before the promulgation of the new Panamanian Penal Code that defined the offense of forced disappearance. The Court finds that, since more than 10 years elapsed from the date on which Panama ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, without the State defining the conduct in question as an offense, this exceeds the reasonable time in which to do so. Therefore, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its specific Convention obligation to define the offense of forced disappearance in keeping with the provisions of Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 188. In addition, bearing in mind that the State has now defined the offense of forced disappearance of persons, the Court must determine whether that definition meets the minimum requirements of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.157 189. In this regard, international law establishes a minimum standard for the correct definition of this type of conduct and the essential elements that must be included, in the understanding that criminal prosecution is a fundamental means of preventing future human rights violations.158 To define this offense, the Panamanian State must take into consideration Article II (supra para. 106) of the said Convention, which sets out the elements that the definition of this criminal offense in domestic law must contain. 190. The State defined the offense of forced disappearance in Article 150 of the 2007 Penal Code, which establishes the following: The public servant who, in abuse of his functions or in violation of legal procedures, shall deprive one or more persons of their physical liberty in whatever form or, knowing their whereabouts, refuses to provide this information when it is requested, shall be punished with from three to five years’ imprisonment. The same punishment applies to private individuals who act with the authorization or support of the public servants. If the forced disappearance is for more than one year, the punishment shall be from ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 191. Although this definition allows certain elements of the offense of forced disappearance of persons to be punished, the Court will examine it to determine whether it fully complies with the State’s international obligations in light of Article II of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance. To this end, it will analyze: (a) the unlawfulness of the deprivation of liberty; (b) the disjunction between the elements of deprivation of liberty and refusal to provide information on the whereabouts of the disappeared; (c) the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty; (d) the proportionality of the punishment with the gravity of the offense, and (e) the continuing or permanent nature of the offense. (a) Unlawfulness of the deprivation of liberty 192. A substantive element of the definition of the offense of forced disappearance found 157 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 154, para. 104. 158 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 92.