75 243. As to the arguments of the State regarding the impossibility of gathering certain evidence (supra para. 229), the Tribunal considers that the State cannot attribute its failure to comply with its conventional obligations and/or its delay in complying to the measures of coordination that must be taken at the international level in order to effectively process evidence, given that it is a duty of the State to adopt such pertinent measures as are required to comply with this obligation and, particularly, to adopt all necessary measures to take the witnesses’ testimony, as well as to take any other steps that may contribute to the advancement of the investigations. Therefore, the State must adopt all administrative, judicial, diplomatic or other measures in order to further advance in the investigation, as well as adopt all measures and procedures required to that effect.285 In this respect, it is worth mentioning the importance of the victim’s cooperation to be able to comply with some of the measures ordered by the organ in charge of the investigation. 244. With respect to the representative’s allegation that the State is responsible for failing to adequately codify the crime of torture, the Court recalls that it has ruled on the noncompliance of obligations established in the Convention against Torture in this regard in the case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, which thereby has general effects that permeate this specific case.286 245. As a consequence, the Inter-American Court concludes that serious alleged violations to the right to the personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Loor that could constitute torture exist in the present case, those of which the local tribunals must investigate. Hence, the Court finds that the State did not duly initiate, until July 10, 2009, a prompt investigation into the allegations of torture and mistreatment to which Mr. Vélez Loor had been subjected; therefore, it failed to comply with the duty to guarantee the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, and the obligations contained in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor. VIII-3 NON-DISCRIMINATION AND RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION 246. The representatives sustained that the violations committed against Jesús Vélez Loor “are framed within a generalized context of discrimination and criminalization of immigration,” in attempts to reduce the migration flows into Panama, particularly of those irregular migrants. 247. The State categorically denied the existence of said context and sustained that the different bodies of the Panamanian State, each of them within the scope of its jurisdiction, had taken and, in fact, continue taking measures to promote integration and equality among the population, whether nationals or aliens, without consideration as to the national or migratory status of the aliens under its jurisdiction. In this way, the State referred to the regularization programs of migrants and amnesty, laws on employment and social security, access to public education and health, among other topics. 248. This Tribunal has already considered that the principle of equality before the law, equal protection before the law, and non-discrimination belongs, at the current 285 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on November 20, 2009, Considering clause 19. 286 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 18; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 194, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 60, para. 191.