considered that article 150 of the Panamanian Criminal Code was contrary to the Convention, because “it appears to be applicable only when there is a ‘refusal to provide’ information on the whereabouts of someone whose deprivation of liberty is already a fact and it is known with certainty that someone has truly been deprived of their liberty.” 347 In this regard, the Court considered that “[t]his definition of the offense does not contemplate the possibility of a situation in which it is not known with certainty whether the disappeared person is or was detained: in other words, it does not include situations in which it is not acknowledged that someone has been deprived of their liberty, even when the whereabouts of the said persons is unknown. It is precisely that failure to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which, on many occasions, endangers other fundamental rights of the disappeared person.” 348 211. Regarding the applicability of article 320 of the Criminal Code to the specific case, the Court notes that this was one of the definitions of an offense that was considered by the Fourth Supraprovincial Court and by the National Criminal Chamber during the criminal proceedings held in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction starting in 2004, and the definition of the offense for which Lieutenant Tello Delgado was prosecuted and of which he was acquitted in the judgment of December 17, 2008 (supra para. 95). The latter was annulled based on inappropriate assessment of the evidence on June 24, 2010 (supra para. 96). During the new trial that culminated in the judgment delivered in 2011, the accused was also acquitted of the offense defined in article 320 of the Criminal Code (supra para. 97). However, the Court considers that no specific relationship has been revealed between the lack of effectiveness, diligence and thoroughness in the investigations and the failure to adapt the definition of the offense of enforced disappearance to the parameters of the Convention. Moreover, the representatives, in their motions and arguments brief, indicated that “the failure to adapt article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code to international standards has not had consequences in the processing of the investigation.” In addition, none of the rulings reveal that the prosecutors reversed the burden of proof onto the complainants owing to this incorrect definition. Thus, the Court does not observe, and the representative do not maintain, that in the case sub judice this incorrect definition of the offense has been a specific factor in obstructing the implementation of the investigations and the proceedings opened into the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 212. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that, while article 320 of the Criminal Code is not adapted correctly to international standards, the State continues to fail to comply with Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 349 B.5. The amnesty laws 213. With regard to the general obligation of the States to adapt their domestic law to the Convention, contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, 350 for the effects of this dispute, it 347 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 199. 348 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 199. 349 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on July 1, 2009, considering paragraph 32; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on July 5, 2011, considering paragraphs 36 and 37, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on August 21, 2013, considering paragraphs 23 to 26. 350 Article 2 establishes that: “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 77