victims, as well as their identification. 16 Given the information provided by the State, the Court notes the positive advancements made by the State on this matter. 20. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the State has undertaken actions aimed at recovering, identifying and delivering the bodies of the victims of the armed conflict, thereby demonstrating significant progress in this regard. Therefore, the Court finds that the State has partially complied with this measure. However, in order to assess the overall compliance thereof, an additional report was requested from the State on the progress made regarding the pending tasks that need to be done in terms of the standardization of identification criteria, the establishment of a genetic information system that allows for the identification and elucidation of the blood relationship of the victims, and their identification. D. Obligation to adopt the necessary measures to reform, within a reasonable time, its criminal legislation as to forced disappearance of persons, in order to render it consistent with the international standards, paying special attention to the terms of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (operative paragraph eight) 21. The State noted that “[to] date, the criminal legislation has not been modified according to the orders of the Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Peruvian State investigates, prosecutes and punishes the offense of forced disappearance under [...] Article 320 of the Criminal Code.” 17 22. In its brief of December 21, 2010, the representatives stated that the State had not adopted any measures adding the offense of forced disappearance to the Criminal Code according to the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances, despite the fact that such measure of reparation was pending compliance as of the issuance of the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the Case of Gómez Palomino of 2005. 18 During the private hearing on monitoring of compliance, they requested that “given the nature of the crime of forced disappearance which hides factual evidence within the context of the only criminal proceeding, which to this date, has been opened, the standards established by the Court be respected, specifically in that at the time that the evidence is assessed, the contextual evidence, the establishment of a relationship between this case and others, and the circumstancial evidence be taken into account.” By way of a brief dated August 8, 2013, they added that “the State has recognized that it still has not fulfilled the Court’s mandate, but has not clarified whether it has taken any steps to comply with this measure. It also did not indicate what steps the State plans on adopting in order to comply with the measure.” 23. The Court considered in its Judgment that, in relation to forced disappearance, the duty to adjust the domestic legislation to the provisions of the American Convention implies the autonomous classification of the crime and the definition of the punishable acts that make it up. 19 Moreover, it noted that, in the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, 20 the Court 16 Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra, para. 189. 17 Article 320, Criminal Code. The employee or public servant that deprives a person of his or her liberty, ordered or took actions that resulted in the duly proven disappearance, shall be punished with deprivation of liberty for no less than 15 years and disqualification, pursuant to Article 36, sections 1 and 2. 18 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 149. 19 Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra, para. 165. 7