42 134. In addition, it should be emphasized that while he was imprisoned at La Palma Detention Center, Mr. Vélez Loor did not have access to the Ombudsman, given that, at the time of the events, said institution did not have offices in that border region.135 According to the records, the Ombudsman only became aware of the case of Mr. Vélez Loor between May and June of 2003 in one of its visits to La Joyita Penitentiary.136 135. Regarding the mechanisms of cooperation between the Ombudsman’s Office of Ecuador and the Ombudsman’s Office of Panama, the Court notes that the State has not accompanied evidence that would support the Court��s decision in this respect, in addition to not being the appropriate forum to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention (supra para. 133). 136. As to the alleged direct access that people deprived of liberty may have to free legal representation provided by a court appointed counsel of Panama, it does not appear from the body of evidence of the instant case that Mr. Vélez Loor had been informed of or that he had proven access to free legal representation provided by court appointed counsel or by any other free legal counsel provided by the State. Moreover, it appears from the evidence furnished in the instant case that, at the time of the arrest of Mr. Vélez Loor, the Office of Immigration did not have court appointed counsels for those people who did not have financial means to be able to be represented.137 137. In his statement, Carlos Benigno González Gómez indicated that, at the time of the events, “[t]he person was held in custody at the premises of the [Office of Immigration] in Panama City, where there was a permanent presence of nongovernmental organizations that provided legal representation to arrested migrants […] These organizations had full access to all the detainees at the premises of [said place].”138 In this respect, the Court notes that Mr. Vélez Loor was not held in custody at the premises of the Office of Immigration in the Panama City, given that during the time he was deprived of liberty, he was held in the State’s custody at penitentiary centers. Furthermore, the Court notes that the assistance that non-governmental organizations might exercise does not substitute for the State’s obligation to offer free legal counsel (infra paras. 146). 138. The issue related to the consular assistance will be considered by the Court in section e) infra (paras. 149 to 160). 139. In sum, the existence alone of recourses is not sufficient without proof of their effectiveness. In this case, the State has not proven how, in the specific circumstances in which Mr. Vélez Loor was imprisoned at La Palma Public Prison in Darién, these remedies were effective, taking into account the fact that he was an arrested alien who did not have legal counsel and without knowledge on the persons or organizations that could provide legal assistance. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the 135 Cf. Affidavit rendered before a public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Sharon Irasema Diaz Rodriguez on August 12, 2010 (case file of the evidence, volumen IX, affidavits, folio 3672) and Note DDP-RP-DRI No. 24-2010 of the Ombudsman of September 23, 2010 (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 5 to the final arguments of the representatives, folios 3794 and 3795). 136 Cf. Note DDP-RP-DRI N° 64-08 issued by the Ombudsman addressed to the Head of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 2, 2008 (case file of the evidence, volume VI, annex 1 of the answer to the application, folio 2427), and Order No. 1046a-03 issued by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Panama on June 30, 2003 (case file of the evidence, tome VII, annex 4 to the response to the application, folios 2649 to 2650). 137 Cf. Statement rendered by María Cristina González at the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on August 25, 2010. 138 Statement rendered by Carlos Benigno González Gómez, supra note 122.