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. 218. In the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru of November 22, 2005, that court concluded that the definition of the crime of forced disappearance set forth in Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code is not in line with the relevant inter-American standards, thus it ordered that it be modified in keeping with the definition set forth in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.194 That provision of the Criminal Code provides: 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 36(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.195 219. In the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, the Inter-American Court concluded that the definition contained in the provision cited “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 InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; therefore, it is incomplete.” The Inter-American Court also underscored that Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code does not incorporate the refusal to recognize the detention and reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person detained as elements of the criminal definition of forced disappearance. Finally, the Court observed that “Article 320 of the Criminal Code … provides that the forced disappearance must be ‘duly proven,’ [which] complicates statutory construction thereof.”196 220. In the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, and subsequently in the case of Osorio Rivera v. Peru, the Court underscored that the text of Article 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code had not been amended and concluded that “so long as that [article] is not correctly adapted, the State continues failing to comply with Articles 2 of the American Convention and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.”197 Along the same lines, by resolution of July 5, 2011 on supervision of compliance with the judgment handed down in Gómez Palomino v. Peru, the Inter-American Court found that “the State has not presented information on what specific actions it may have adopted to reform the criminal legislation in the terms indicated in the judgment.”198 221. Given that to date the Peruvian State has not modified the criminal law definition of forced disappearance set forth at Article 320 of the Criminal Code, through the mechanisms provided for in its legal system, the IACHR considers that Peru persists in its failure to carry out the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law, in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention and Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 194 I/A Court HR, Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 149 and operative point 12. 195 See Law No. 26926 of January 30, 1998, Article 1, available at the Internet portal of the Congress of the Republic of Peru: www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26926.pdf. 196 I/A Court HR, Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paras. 100 to 108. 197 I/A Court HR, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 167, and I/A Court HR, Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru, Judgment of November 26, 2013, Series C No.274, para. 212. 198 I/A Court HR, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Case of Gómez Palomino, July 5, 2011, para. 37.