86 [T]he Court considers it appropriate to order the State to adapt, within a reasonable time, its domestic laws to define [the offense] of torture in the terms and in compliance with the obligations assumed in relation [with] the Convention against Torture […].313 292. Therefore, the Court considers it is not appropriate to order, once again, the adequate classification of the crime of torture, given that such measure of reparation was already ordered in the mentioned Judgment supra and such ruling has general effects that go beyond the specific case. Furthermore, the Court is still assessing compliance with what was ordered in said Judgment at the monitoring compliance stage. f) Other measures requested 293. The representatives requested the Court, in addition, to order the State: a) to organize an act to acknowledge its responsibility for the violations committed and to guarantee that similar facts do not reoccur; b) to conduct an effective and serious investigation into the identity of the officials who failed to initiate the investigation into the alleged acts of torture committed to the detriment of the victim; c) to draw up “protocols by which it is compulsory to conduct thorough physical examinations of the people deprived of liberty at the moment they are admitted into the different prison centers, before any indication of mistreatment or torture or regarding the different prison centers,” d) to create a mechanism of “daily visits to the detention facilities, in order to prevent, detect and punish those conducts that may entail a violation of the rights to security and humane treatment and life those deprived of liberty,” and e) to set in motion “a mechanism by which those deprived of liberty have the possibility of directly informing the corresponding authorities of the attacks to which they are subjected while in custody.” 294. Regarding these requests, the Court considers that the issuing of the present Judgment and the reparations ordered in this Chapter are sufficient and adequate for the reparation of the consequences of the violations suffered by the victim.314 295. In addition, the representatives requested the Court to order the Panamanian State to comply with Law N° 55 of July 30, 2003, and to guarantee that the management of the penitentiary centers and the custody of those deprived of liberty be carried out by civil and public officials, who must be adequately trained for this. The State pointed out that the National Prison System has worked on the recruitment of human resources interested in receiving formal training to work as guards in the prison centers of the country. However, it acknowledged that the calls have not found great acceptance in the society. Therefore, it informed that it continues issuing calls to locate people with the adequate profile to perform such task. It mentioned that the call for new prison guards is issued by means of national mass media. Furthermore, it indicated that, currently, the program for the recruitment of Civilian Guards has established a quota of 200 Guards and B/30,000.00 (thirty thousand Balboas) for the initial training. 296. The Court positively values the efforts made by the State for the incorporation and training of qualified civilian personnel to work as guards in the prison centers of Panama. However, it notes that, in this case, it has not ruled in its considerations on the merits regarding the domestic law provisions related to Law 55 of 2003; therefore, it is not possible to order reparations in this regard. 313 314 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 27, para. 259. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 25, para. 359; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 267, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 238.