9 * * 32. As to the duty to define the offenses of forced disappearance of persons and torture (operative paragraph sixteen of the Judgment), the State referred to the proposal of a "Bill that modifies and adds sections to the Criminal code, to adjust it to the international definition of the crime of forced disappearance and the crime of torture,” which “was presented in the year 2008.” However, within the framework of the private hearing, the State made reference to a new bill “[which] shall be presented by the First Vice- President and Chancellor of the Republic before the National Assembly at the House of Representatives on September 1, 2010, when the new legislative period begins and which shall be based on the legislative initiative launched by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The State explained that “it is necessary to wait until [such] a date [since] according the Panamanian constitutional law, any bill presented within a presidential period, the legislative process of which is not over by the end of such a period, has to be presented again in the next presidential period”. According to the documentation presented by the State at the private hearing, such bill would embody what the Court indicated in its Judgment, as well as the specialized observations on “international standards” in the matter. In this way, as to the crime of forced disappearance, the new bill would be different in the following aspects: a) “[t]he element of illegitimacy in the deprivation of liberty;” b) “[t]he dilemma about the elements of deprivation of liberty and the denial to provide information regarding the whereabouts of the disappeared person;” c) “[t]he denial to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty;” d) “[t]he proportionality of the punishment based on the seriousness of the crime,” and e) "[t]he continuous or permanent nature of the crime.” Regarding the crime of torture, the new bill is different as to: i) “[t]he lack of definition of [the] elements constituting such a crime;” ii) “[t]he limitation of the wrongdoing to public officials,” and iii) "[t]he deprivation of liberty of the victim.” 33. In relation to the first bill, the representatives pointed out that “it is clear that the proposed drafting does not solve all the problems indicated by the […] Court in its Judgment.” Moreover, they emphasized that “a proposal from the Executive branch is not enough; instead, such a proposal must be draft according to the international obligations assumed by the State and must be duly approved by the procedures established in the Panamanian law.” 34. As to the first bill, the Commission "t[ook] note [....] and considered [it] was a first step towards compliance [with was ordered in] the Judgment.” Within the framework of the private hearing, it consulted whether the new bill that is going to be presented on September 1, 2010 “is the same.” This, because for the Commission, in the first bill, “[the] forced disappearance only [makes] reference to illegal detentions, for which punishment is five to eight years, and [therefore], it is concerned about the proportionality of the punishment with the crime." Regarding the crime of torture, said first bill, “basically does not satisfy any of the elements referred to by the Court in its Judgment, [since] it does not clearly establish which are the elements constituting the crime [...], and it only refers to its application to detained people.” 35. In that respect, the Court underlines that those States that have ratified the Convention, in exercise of their sovereign authorities, have acquired the commitment to adapt their legislation and with that, ensure the application of the rules recognized by the state itself, by the state’s agents or organs. The opposite thing would be translated in a concerning suspension of the conventional rules that would be inconsistent with the effective enforcement of the human rights and the sovereign decision of the State to bind itself to comply with the rules of the Convention. In this respect, the Court observes that failure to define or the incorrect definition, at the domestic level, of the forced disappearance and torture hinders the effective development of effective criminal proceedings, current and future, allowing impunity to prevail13. 13 See Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 183; Case of Trujillo Oroza V. Bolivia. Monitoring Compliance with the