15. In the original complaint, he stated that he lacked sufficient evidence of the torture he had received because any document that implicated the police officers was forbidden. 1 16. In a number of communications, the petitioner gave information about the steady decline of his health due to the consequences, both physical and psychological, of the torture he had received. The Commission was told that the alleged victim did not have the support of the Ecuadorian State, that he did not have the financial wherewithal for medical treatment, that he was not well enough to perform many tasks, and that his life was at risk. 17. With regard to the State’s arguments about the nonexistence of the criminal complaint presented by the petitioner with regard to the alleged torture that he had suffered, the petitioner points out that after filing the complaint with the Panamanian Embassy in Ecuador, subsequent to September 10, 2003, the Panamanian State should have initiated the pertinent criminal proceedings in order to investigate the facts of the case. He adds that the State cannot divest itself of the burden of proof with respect to the initiation of criminal proceedings. The petitioner points out that the sole remedy available to him once he was outside of Panamanian territory, was to approach the Embassy of Panama. He alleges that the State is willing to move forward with investigations only now that the case has been denounced abroad. 18. Moreover, Mr. Vélez Loor points out that he was not informed as to his rights at the time he was arrested. He adds that the Panamanian government never notified the Ecuadorian Consular Mission of his arrest, so that his expatriation might be processed. He states that the imposition of a prison term was done without considering the possibility of allowing him to defend himself and that no judge tried his case. Specifically, the petitioner highlights the statement made by the Minister of Justice in the course of the public hearing held in the 124 th regular session, to the effect that no judicial authority is informed during the proceedings in which a prison sentence is imposed on repeat-offender illegal immigrants. The petitioner points out that he was not given a public defender and he was not allowed access to a private lawyer, given that he had been forcibly prevented from making any contact with the outside world. Moreover, he points out, it is unlikely that a private lawyer would want to defend an immigrant, without papers, and with no money to guarantee payment of his fees. The petitioner states that the administrative process involved in putting an undocumented immigrant on trial makes no provision for possible defense and that the person who orders the imprisonment is an administrative authority. 19. The petitioner alleges that as a consequence of the actions taken against him that Panama is responsible internationally for the violation of articles 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (due process), 10 (indemnization), 21 (right to property) and 25 (access to justice) of the American Convention. B. The State 20. In its response, dated March 6, 2006, the State introduced its argument by pointing out that Mr. Vélez Loor had entered Panama illegally on a number of previous occasions. The State notes that on September 16, 1996, Mr. Vélez Loor was arrested by Units of the National Police and sent to the National Directorate for Migration and Naturalization (hereinafter referred to as “the Directorate of Migration”) for having entered Panamanian territory through Darién Province, without any documents to accredit his identity or nationality. In light of the above, on September 18, 1996, Mr. Vélez Loor was deported for having entered the country illegally, pursuant to resolution No. 6425 of September 18, 1996. This resolution stated that Mr. Vélez Loor would be unable to enter Panama again without the express agreement of the Directorate of Migration. Moreover, this resolution informed Mr. Vélez of the content of Article 67 of Decree Law No. 16 of June 30, 1960: Article 67. Foreigners sentenced to deportation who evade this sentence by staying in the country in a clandestine way or who flout the decision by returning will be forced to carry 1 In the original complaint, received on February 10, 2004, the petitioner identified some policemen who had allegedly participated in his torture during his detention at La Palma prison (Darién Province). He refers to a policeman called “Arturo”, a policeman who had the nickname “Músculo”. During the time he was held at La Joyita prison, he refers to Mike Castillo and “Lieutenant Wallker” [sic], Lieut. Patiño, Adalides Batista, Corporal (“Cabo”) García, Police Officer Camargo and “others that cannot be identified because they tried to conceal their names.” 4