answers in regard to his whereabouts in a reasonable period of time (supra para. 139). Likewise, in her testimony given in the hearing before this Court, Mrs. Millacura Llaipén stated that: Apologies or requests for forgiveness are useless to [her] because that's not enough for a mother. They've destroyed [her] life. They destroyed it completely, [she] is a woman who lives superficially, [she’s] dead inside, they destroyed [her] family [...]. If [her] son is not with [her], it's not enough for [her], it's nothing, the only thing that will be enough and allow [her] to continue living is to have [her] son, Iván [Eladio Torres Millacura at her] side[.] 144. Likewise, the testimony given before this Tribunal indicates that Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura and Fabiola Valeria Torres suffered deep pain given the absence of their brother, and that both of them took actions toward discovering his whereabouts.158 Regarding this latter individual, the case file before the Court indicates that Fabiola Valeria Torres was living with her mother and brother, Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, at the time he was disappeared and that she brought a writ of habeas corpus in favor of her brother that same month. (supra para. 134). 145. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Tribunal concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of thereof, to the detriment of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura. XI DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS A. Arguments of the parties. 146. The Inter-American Commission indicated that on October 11, 1995, Law 24.556 was promulgated in Argentina. Through this law, the State approved the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on the federal level. Likewise, it alleged that the judicial authorities hearing this case have carried out the investigation of the facts and the processing of those allegedly responsible in keeping with a definition of the crime of enforced disappearance of persons based on the Convention on Forced Disappearance, as in Argentina, such activity "is not codified" as a crime. Therefore, the Commission indicated that “as of the drafting of the application, the State had not definitively complied” with the provisions of Article III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance. Based on this, the Commission indicated that the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8(1), 25, and 1(1) thereof. In general terms, the representatives agreed with this argument. 147. In its response to the application, the State did not put forward any specific arguments on this point. However, it accepted the conclusions contained in the Report on the merits, as well as the juridical consequences derived thereof. (supra paras. 6 and 31). B. Considerations of the Court. 158 Cf. Testimony rendered before notary public by Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura (case file on the merits, tome II, folios 1172 to 1179), and Testimony rendered before notary public by Fabiola Valeria Torres (case file on the merits, tome II, folios 1109 to 1115). 45