46 Heliodoro Portugal. The representatives indicated that, according to Article 93 of the 1983 Penal Code, “in cases of homicide, the statute of limitations for criminal proceedings comes into force 20 years after the unlawful act.” Additionally, the representatives stated that although a new Penal Code was adopted in 2007 that defines the offense of forced disappearance, that definition “does not comply with the requirements established in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. They indicated that, by placing it under the title of offenses against liberty, the State failed to acknowledge the multiple and continuing nature of the offense of forced disappearance. Moreover, they argued that the definition does not meet international standards because “it establishes, as an alternative, the deprivation of liberty or the denial of information on the whereabouts of the victim,” which could give rise to “confusion with other types of offense and prevent the application of the appropriate probative criteria.” They also alleged that the definition of the offense is too restrictive, because it limits its application “to situations in which public servants abuse their authority or infringe legal procedures,” while the international standards prohibit any form of deprivation of liberty followed by an absence of information on the whereabouts of the detained person. Furthermore, they indicated that the penalties established “are inadequate because they do not acknowledge the extreme gravity of the offense” when compared to the penalties imposed for other offenses. Finally, they indicated that the definition of the offense does not reflect the continuing and permanent nature of the offense of forced disappearance. Although the Penal Code recognizes that there is no statute of limitations for the offense, it does not recognize this for the criminal action. According to the representatives, the obligation to define this offense arose not only as of the ratification of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons in 1996, but also following the State’s ratification of the American Convention in 1978. 178. The State argued that it has been taking steps to define the offense of forced disappearance since 1993, when it created legislative commissions to draft a new Penal Code and a new Code of Criminal Procedure. It pointed out that, in September 2005, the Prosecutor General presented a draft law to the Assembly to define the offense of forced disappearance. However, the legislators did not discuss this project, because it was considered preferable to define the offense while drafting the new Penal Code. This Penal Code was approved on May 22, 2007, and defined the autonomous offense of forced disappearance in its Article 150. Moreover, the State indicated that Article 432 of the new Code establishes the penalty of 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment for the offense: the most severe penalty included in its domestic laws. In addition, it pointed out that, according to Article 115 of the new Penal Code, neither pardon nor amnesty can be applied in cases of forced disappearance and that, according to Article 107 of the new Code, the benefit of commutation of a prison sentence for individuals in special circumstances is not applicable to those convicted of the offense of forced disappearance. Likewise, the State noted that the penalty imposed for the offense is not subject to the statute of limitations, according to Article 120 of the Penal Code, and obeying orders does not constitute a defense, according to Article 40 thereof. Consequently, the State argued that the definition of the offense complies fully with international standards. 179. Regarding the general obligation to ensure that domestic laws comply with the Convention, the Court has affirmed on several occasions that “[u]nder public international law, a customary norm stipulates that a State that has concluded an international agreement, must introduce the necessary modifications in its domestic law to ensure compliance with its undertakings.”146 This principle is embodied in Article 2 of the American 146 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 55, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 16, para. 170.