147. Article 2 of the American Convention states that: Where 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. 148. Article III of the CISDFP establishes the following The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined. The States Parties may establish mitigating circumstances for persons who have participated in acts constituting forced disappearance when they help to cause the victim to reappear alive or provide information that sheds light on the forced disappearance of a person. 149. In the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Gómez Palomino vs. Peru of November 22, 2005, that tribunal concluded that the classification of the crime of forced disappearance referred to in Article 320 of the Peruvian Penal Code did not meet inter-American standards on the subject, and so ordered that it be amended to conform to the definition contained in Article III of the CISDFP.110 That provision of the Peruvian Penal Code establishes the following: The official or public servant who deprives a person of his freedom, ordering or executing actions that result in that person’s duly proven disappearance, shall be reprimanded by a sentence of deprivation of freedom of no less than fifteen years and professional disqualification, in accordance with Article 36, subparagraphs 1) and 2).111 150. In the case of Gómez Palomino, the Inter-American Court concluded that the definition contained in the referenced law “restricts the perpetrators of forced disappearance to government officials or public servants” and that it “does not contain all the types of criminal participation included in Article II of the CISDFP, thus being incomplete.” Moreover, the Inter-American Court underlined that Article 32 of the Peruvian Penal Code does not include denial to acknowledge detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the detainee as elements of the crime of forced disappearance. Finally, the Court observed that “Article 320 of the Penal Code […] refers to the fact that disappearance must be “duly proven,” which presents serious difficulties in its interpretation.”112 151. With respect to the present case, the Commission notes that the Superior Coordinating Prosecutor of the National Criminal Superior Prosecution Office and the Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecution Offices issued Report No. 004-2011-FSPNC-MP-FN of April 4, 2011, addressed to the Alternate Representative of the National Prosecution Office of the National Human Rights Council, stating that “the wording of Article 320 of the Penal Code is not aligned with the classification of the crime of forced disappearance pursuant to the 110 Inter-American Court, Case of Gómez Palomino Vs. Peru, Judgment of 22 November 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 149 and operative item 12. 111 See Law No. 26926 of 30 January 1998, Article 1º, available on the website of the Peruvian Congress: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26926.pdf. to 108. 112Inter-American Court, Case of Gómez Palomino Vs. Peru, Judgment of 22 de November de 2005. Series C No. 136, paras. 100 30