provided according to the needs and with the consent of the beneficiaries. The Court recalls its observations in the previous Order, namely that the psychological treatment provided by the State must take into account the particular circumstances and needs of each person, so that they can be provided with collective, family or individual treatment, as agreed with each person and following individual assessment.10 To that end, the Court reiterates that the State authorities must continue to secure the cooperation and consent of the beneficiaries.11 17. Consequently, the Court deems it necessary that the State submit organized, complete and up-to-date information regarding the measures adopted to comply with this operative paragraph of the Judgment in favor of Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the State should include information regarding the feasibility of following the recommendation of the Pan American Health Organization, so that “the people who have suffered different types of violence [could] be treated within the framework of the mental health system […] [of Panama].” 3. Obligation to define the offenses of forced disappearance of persons and torture (Operative Paragraph 16 of the Judgment) 18. The State reported that the crimes of forced disappearance of persons and torture were defined in Law No. 1 of January 13, 2011, published in the Official Gazette No. 26702-A, which “modified and added articles to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Panama in relation to the offenses of Forced Disappearance of Persons and Torture.” The State attached a copy of the aforementioned law. 19. The representatives noted that “the text of the approved law does not stipulate that in cases of forced disappearance the criminal proceedings, or the penalty, are not subject to the statute of limitations [, nor] does it recognize the continuous or permanent nature of the offense of forced disappearance.” They stated that the omission of this aspect of the offense could have consequences for the application of the criminal definition to behaviors that started before the legal definition of the offense and continued thereafter. Similarly, with regard to the definition of torture, the representatives indicated that the new text overcomes the limitations of the previous wording, which only defined the behavior of public servants. However, they emphasized the provisions of Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, considering it important that the norm in question clearly define the persons who may be considered as perpetrators of this offense. 20. The Commission noted that the new text adopted on forced disappearance is, in principle, compatible with four of the five elements considered essential with regard to the State’s international obligations and indicated as such in the Judgment, namely: a) irrelevance of the way in which forced disappearance is perpetrated; b) deprivation of liberty and failure to provide information in that regard; c) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty; and d) proportionality of the punishment in relation to the gravity of the crime. However, the Commission indicated that this norm does not establish the continuity or permanence of the offense or the fact that it is not subject 10 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 5, considering paragraph 30. 11 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 5, considering paragraph 30. 6