52 accused.162 e) Continuing or permanent nature of the offense 204. Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes that the offense of forced disappearances should be “deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 205. According to Article 120 of the Panamanian 2007 Penal Code, the penalty imposed for the offense of forced disappearance cannot be subject to the statute of limitations. Likewise, in accordance with Article 115 of the Penal Code, “pardons or amnesties [cannot be granted] in a case of forced disappearance.” 206. Even though the Penal Code recognizes that the punishment is not subject to a statute of limitations, the Convention requires that the criminal proceedings cannot be subject to a statute of limitations while the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been established. It is worth noting that the continuing nature of the offense of forced disappearance was recognized, confirmed and reaffirmed by the State’s highest national court163 when, in 2004, it refused to apply the statute of limitations to the domestic proceeding on the disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal (supra para. 133). The highest courts of other State Parties to the American Convention have also recognized this (supra para. 111). 207. Since the State has not adapted its domestic laws to expressly indicate that the criminal proceedings for the offense of forced disappearance are not subject to a statute of limitations, the State has failed to comply with its obligation established in Article III of the Convention on Forced Disappearances. * * * 208. The Court observes that the removal of elements that are considered irreducible from the prosecutorial formula established at the international level, as well as the introduction of mechanisms that weaken its meaning or effectiveness, can lead to the impunity of acts that the States are obligated to prevent, eradicate, and punish in accordance with international law.164 209. Based on the above, the Inter-American Court considers that the State has failed to comply with its obligation to define forced disappearance as an offense pursuant to the provisions of Articles II and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. * * 210. * In addition, the representatives alleged that the State had failed to comply with its 162 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 123, paras. 103, 106 and 108; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 50, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 161, para. 81. Cf., likewise, Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 55. 163 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 10, para. 121. 164 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 92.