10 provisions of International Human Rights Law (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), the State alleged that on July 27, 2007, it forwarded a note to the President of the Honorable National Congress requesting him the modification of the definition of the crimes of torture and “involuntary” disappearance of people, in order to adapt them to International Human Rights Law. 37. That the representatives mentioned that the National Congress is effectively dealing with a set of proposals for the modification of the current Penal Code, which include the definition so ordered. Moreover, the Commission valued the measures so introduced and requested the State to forward a copy of the existing project, urging it to adopt the necessary measures to comply with this operative paragraph. 38. That the Court values the will shown by the State to comply with this issue and observes that it is in principle, though not satisfactorily, complying with this obligation since the Government sends notes to the Congress requesting the modification of the referred rules. In this sense, the reparation so ordered establishes an obligation for the legislative branch of the State to modify such rules within a reasonable time and the treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. Therefore, this Tribunal urges the State to fulfill, through all competent organs, these obligations and deems it is necessary to receive further information on the specific progress and possibilities of the modifications mentioned. * * * 39. That as to the obligation of the State to pay compensations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses (operative paragraph operative paragraphs thirteen, fourteen and fifteen of the Judgment), the State pointed out that the Treasury has informed that it has been included in the Project of the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2008, the sum of PYG. 921.707.200 (nine hundred twenty-one millions seven hundred and seven thousand two hundred Guarani) and it has attached to such report, as evidentiary documentary, an Official letter of the Treasury informing on that issue. 40. That the representatives mentioned that they are aware of the fact that the amount proposed by the State has been requested in the budget account of the year 2008; nevertheless, they pointed out that said matter “has not been addressed at the Congress nor has been followed- up by the officials of the Treasury Department”. Some of the victims’ next-of-kin mentioned that “the request for resources sent to the Congress does not show, on its own, the will to comply with this part of the Judgment" and they emphasized that there is no evidence in the State's report regarding the exhibits thereto that may effectively prove that said proposal has been forwarded to the Congress nor there are documents or copies that may certify that said compensations are included in the budget account of the year 2008. They added that there is no presentation of arguments or evidence of complementary measures to obtain the approval of such budget. Furthermore, the representatives pointed out that they have no contact with the Treasury Department and that the amounts proposed by the State are not the same as the amounts set forth by the Court in the Judgment. 41. That the Commission urged the State to inform the Court on whether the payment of the compensations, costs and expenses of the instant case has been