10 37. That according to the decision of this Court in the case of Ticona-Estrada v. Bolivia,14 even though there was no legal definition of the crime of forced disappearance of persons in the Bolivian law, the Bolivian legislation comprised criminal rules providing for the effective observance of the guarantees established in the Convention with respect to the individual rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty.15 This is equally applicable to this case from the very moment the criminal proceedings were instituted in 1999. 38. That, as this is a crime of continuous perpetration, i.e. it is executed on an ongoing basis, at the time the crime of forced disappearance of persons becomes punishable in the State, the criminal perpetration thereof is concurrent with the new applicable law, for no retroactive application is necessary. The Tribunal has already pointed out,16 based on the same rationale, that courts of a higher hierarchy within the American continent, such as the National Criminal Court of Peru, the Constitutional Court of Peru, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico and the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, have rendered decisions in States which, as Bolivia, are signatories of the Convention on Forced Disappearance.17 This way, as the whereabouts of José Carlos Trujillo-Oroza remain unknown, the crime of forced disappearance of persons is applicable to the criminal proceedings conducted in the instant case. 39. That this Court considers that the incorrect definition of the crime of forced disappearance of persons in the domestic law hinders the effective development of the criminal proceedings, allowing impunity to prevail. In this sense, this Court has noted that the application of the crimes of abduction or kidnapping is insufficient for the State to punish such a grave violation like the forced disappearance of persons.18 This is strictly associated with the notion of proportionality of punishment and the gravity of the forced disappearance of persons. This is the spirit of Article III of IACFDP,19 signed by the State on May 5, 1999. 14 Cf. Ticona-Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Supra note 9, para. 104. In the same regard, Cf. Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 12, para. 184. 15 Cf. Criminal Code of Bolivia, Title VIII “Crimes against life and physical integrity,” sections 251-281, and Title X “Crimes against liberty,” sections 291-307. 16 Cf. Cf. Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 87. 17 Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, Judgment of March 20, 2006, File:111-04, D.D Cayo Rivera Schreiber. Constitutional Court of Peru, judgment of March 18, 2004, file N.° 2488-2002-HC/TC, para. 26 (Enhttp://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2004/02488-2002-HC.html) and judgment of December 9, 2004, file N.º 2798-04-HC/TC, para. 22 (At: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2005/02798-2004-HC.html ). Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 49/2004, Judicial Seminar of the Federation and its Gaceta, Ninth Period, In Full. Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007. 18 Cf. Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 12, para. 181. 19 Which, in its pertinent parts, states: The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.