37 truth and justice, the IACHR finds that the State did violate the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 5. Obligation of adopting provisions of domestic law to criminalize the crime of forced disappearance of persons (Article 2 of the American Convention and Article III of the IACFDP) 148. Article III of the IACFDP reads: 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. The Inter-American Court, in its judgment of November 22, 2005, in the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, concluded that the definition of the crime of forced disappearance set out in Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code was not in line with the applicable inter-American standards and, consequently, ordered its amendment in accordance with the definition contained in Article III of the 181 IACFDP. The aforesaid norm of the Peruvian Criminal Code reads as follows: Article 320 Any public official or servant who deprives any person of their liberty by either ordering or carrying out actions leading to the duly proven disappearance of any such person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than fifteen years and disqualification from office, pursuant to Article 182 36(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code . 150. In its judgment in the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru the Court concluded that the definition contained in the cited norm “restricts forced disappearance offenders to public officials or servants” and that it “does not contain all forms of criminal involvement included in Article II of the [IACFDP]; therefore, it is incomplete. The Inter-American Court stressed that Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code does not encompasses the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to provide information about the fate or whereabouts of detained persons as elements of the forced disappearance definition. Finally, the Court noted that “Article 320 of the Criminal Code […] provides that the forced 183 disappearance must be ‘duly proven’ [which] complicates statutory construction thereof.” 151. In the Anzualdo Castro case, the Court noted that the text of Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code had not been amended and concluded that “so long as that criminal law is not correctly adapted, the State continues failing to comply with Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the 184 ICFDP.” Through a resolution of July 5, 2011 on the follow-up of compliance on the judgment issued in the case of Gómez Palomino, the Court affirmed that “the State has not presented information on the 185 concrete actions it had adopted to amend its criminal law as provided in the judgment . 181 I/A Court H. R., Gómez Palomino Case, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 136, para. 149 and operative paragraph 12. 182 See Law No. 26926 of January 30, 1998, Article 1, available at the webpage of the Congress of the Peruvian Republic: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26926.pdf. 183 I/A Court H. R., Gómez Palomino Case, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 136, paras. 100-108. 184 I/A Court H. R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 167. 185 I/A Court H. R., Ruling on the follow-up on the compliance of the judgment on the Case of Gómez Palomino, July 5, 2011, para. 37.