The State must continue effectively, with the greatest diligence and within a reasonable
time, the criminal investigation opened in relation to the facts denounced by Mr. Vélez Loor, in
order to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and apply, as appropriate, the
punishments and other consequences provided for by law, as established in paragraph 270 of
th[e] Judgment.
The State must, within a reasonable time, take the necessary measures to ensure that
there are establishments with sufficient capacity to accommodate those individuals whose
detention is necessary and proportionate in the specific case owing to migratory issues, which
offer the physical conditions and a regime that is adapted to migrants, staffed by duly trained
and qualified civilian personnel, as established in paragraph 272 of th[e] Judgment.
The State must implement, within a reasonable time, an education and training program
on international standards relating to the human rights of migrants, guarantees of due process of
law, and the right to consular assistance for the personnel of the National Immigration and
Naturalization Service, as well as for other officials who, owing to their terms of reference, deal
with migrants, as established in paragraph 278 of th[e] Judgment.
The State must implement, within a reasonable time, training programs on the
obligation to open investigations, ex officio, whenever a report or a well-founded reason exists to
believe that an act of torture has been committed under its jurisdiction, for members of the
Public Prosecution Service, the Judiciary, the National Police, and health sector personnel with
competence in this type of case and who, owing to their functions, are the first persons called on
to attend victims of torture, as established in paragraph 280 of th[e] Judgment.
The State must pay the amounts established in paragraphs 304, 307, 314 and 319 of
th[e] Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for
reimbursement of costs and expenses, as appropriate, within one year of notification of th[e]
Judgment, as established in paragraphs 321 to 326 of the Judgment.

The briefs of June 8 and 10 and December 23, 2011, February 10 and 15, March 5
and 12, May 16, 21 and 25, June 8 and September 20, 2012, in which the State presented
information on compliance with the Judgment.
The briefs of January 23, June 21, August 30 and October 23, 2012, in which the
representatives forwarded information on compliance with the Judgment as well as
observations on the reports presented by Panama (supra having seen paragraph 2).
The brief of October 19, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its
observations on the information forwarded by the State and by the representatives (supra
having seen paragraphs 2 and 3). The Commission did not present its observations on the
State’s report of September 20, 2012, within the corresponding time frame.
The brief of February 5, 2013, in which the State presented additional information on
compliance with the Judgment. The Court has considered the information provided on this
occasion in this Order, without prejudice to the observations that the representatives and
the Commission present within the time frame granted to that end.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
Under the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must
comply with the judgments of the Court fully and promptly. In addition, Article 68(1) of the
American Convention stipulates that: “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to

Select target paragraph3