21          Articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the right to recourse to a court to decide on the lawfulness of the arrest of Mr. Vélez Loor; Article 8(2)(h) and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the right to appeal the judgment; Article 8(2)(e) of the American Convention in relation to the right to legal counsel and in relation to the information and access to consular assistance of Ecuador; Article 25 of the American Convention in relation to the right to judicial protection; Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to the condition of deprivation of liberty related to the alleged lack of medical care during Mr. Vélez Loor’s imprisonment in Panama and the supply of potable water in La Joyita Penitentiary Center; the obligation to guarantee Article 5 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, for failing to conduct a serious and diligent investigation into the allegations of torture presented by Mr. Vélez Loor; Article 2 of the American Convention for failing to adapt its domestic law to Articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in view of the application of Decree Law 16 of June 30, 1960; Articles 24, 1(1), and 2 of the American Convention in relation to the violation of the principle of equal protection and non-discrimination; and, Articles 2 of the American Convention and 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture for the alleged lack of adequate classification of the crime of torture. 68. As for the claims of reparations, the State acknowledged the determination of the alleged victim, accepted its duty to repair the violations acknowledged for the infringement of the rights to humane treatment [personal integrity], personal liberty, a fair trial [judicial guarantees], and judicial protection established in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention and indicated some measures it has adopted or offers to adopt, which shall be analyzed in the corresponding chapter. However, it objected to the State's obligation to conduct a serious and diligent investigation into the allegations of torture allegedly committed under its jurisdiction to the detriment of Vélez Loor; the obligation to bring in line the domestic legislation on immigration and its application to the minimum guarantees established in Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention; the obligation to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Panamanian detention centers comply with the minimum standards compatible with affording a humane treatment and that permit those persons deprived of liberty to have a dignified life; to initiate investigations ex officio upon the filing of a complaint or a well grounded reason to believe that an act of torture was committed under its jurisdiction and to pay all the costs and expenses incurred in the processing of the instant case before the Inter-American Commission and the Court. Moreover, the Commission and the representatives questioned the extent of the results that the State argues, for which there is still controversy in relation to other forms of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. Consequently, the Tribunal shall decide what is appropriate. 69. In the instant case, the Tribunal deems that the State’s partial acknowledgement of the facts and acquiescence with regard to some of the legal claims and claims for reparation make a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention,46 and in part to satisfying the reparation required by the victims of human rights violations. 46 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 37, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 25.