74 allows for the determination of the nature and origin of the injuries, the identification of those responsible, and prosecution of said persons to commence.278 241. In this case, the Court notes that the State authorities did not proceed according to what was duly expected, given that the proceedings conducted by the State only verified the detention and presence of Mr. Vélez Loor in Panama during the period of time mentioned (supra para. 237). It was not until October 14, 2008, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Human Rights Department, forwarded to the Ombudsman's Office the brief that was filed, as well as the complaint signed by Mr. Vélez Loor (supra para. 235), which was received on day 16th of that month and year.279 In relation to the briefs of September 15, October 7 and 24, 2004 presented by Mr. Vélez Loor, there is no record that the State had conducted any proceeding regarding the alleged acts of torture and mistreatment denounced. Hence, the authorities that learned of such accusations did not present before the corresponding authorities of Panama the respective accusations in order to initiate ex officio and immediately an impartial, independent, and detailed investigation so as to guarantee the gathering and preservation of evidence that would establish what happened to Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor. Much to the contrary, they challenged the truthfulness of the allegations of torture without conducting a thorough investigation (supra para. 239). Likewise, within the framework of this proceeding, the State has denied the commission of such alleged acts of torture that, as the Commission mentioned, threatens the seriousness of the development of a domestic criminal proceeding. 242. Finally, it is worth noting that it was not until the notification of the report on the merits 37/09 issued by the Inter-American Commission that the Deputy Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Panama learned about the facts denounced by Mr. Vélez Loor, and on July 10, 2006, the investigation was initiated. The Prosecutor’s Office, upon considering that “[w]hat was mentioned constitut[ed] a noticia criminis,” ordered the immediate summary investigation for the crime against liberty to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor “in order to shed light on all those circumstances leading to the determination of the illicit act, its nature and the consequences of criminal relevance, as well as the alleged responsible.”280 To that effect, on August 11, 2009, it requested information related to the arrest in Panama of Mr. Vélez Loor to all the authorities involved, according to his version.281 Said request was repeated on October 19, 2009.282 By December 2009, some public agencies had forwarded the information requested, while other responses were pending.283 Finally, on April 5, 2010, a visual inspection was conducted at La Joyita Penitentiary Center; however, it could not be completed given that the documents to inspect “were books containing old dates and were filed.”284 278 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler, supra note 27, para. 54; Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para. 92, and Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 157, para. 88. 279 Cf. Order A.J.D.H. No. 106 submitted by the Head of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Panama to the Ombudsman of October 14, 2008 (case file of the evidence, tome VI, annex 1 to the answer to the application, folio 2422). 280 Order to initiate the investigations issued by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Panama on July 10, 2009 (case file of the evidence, volume VI, annex 1 of the answer to the application, folio 2373). 281 Cf. Order issued by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Panama on August 11, 2009 (case file of the evidence, volume VI, annex 1 of the response of the application, folio 2374 to 2378). 282 Cf. Case file N° 1219 of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic regarding the investigation for the crime against liberty to the detriment of Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor (case file of the evidence, volume VI, annex 1 of the answer to the application, folio 2428 to 2440). 283 Cf. Case file N° 1219, supra note 282. 284 Case file N° 1219, supra note 282, folios 2254, 2255, 2272 to 2279 and 2289.