open.8 Regarding the on-site inspection made in La Palma on June 8, 2012, they considered that it was a useless action that did not provide any relevant information because a previous inspection carried out on May 17, 2010, had the same purpose, and this had been recorded. As regards the on-site inspections made in Metetí and in La Esperanza, they indicated that the investigating authority had merely recorded a general description and taken some photographs. In relation to the two sworn statements obtained by this authority, they considered that, since the statements were made by two individuals chosen at random, they did not provide any substantive information to the investigation. Furthermore, they indicated that Mr. Vélez Loor had not been able to make his initial statement, “a procedural measure that was essential for determining the events denounced,” “because the Panamanian authorities had not communicated with him, even though his contact information in Bolivia had been formally provided to the Head of International Affairs of the Panamanian Public Prosecution Service.” According to the representatives, there is also no evidence in the case file that the State has taken any measure following the communication of the International Affairs Secretariat of the Attorney General’s Office indicating that the request for assistance should be corrected. Regarding the identification of the two police agents, they indicated that the State had not specified where these individuals were, or what other measures it was taking to investigate their possible participation in the events denounced; also, that their statements had not been received and Mr. Vélez Loor had not been asked to identify them. They therefore asked the Court to require the State to provide an account of the measures that were pending and a timetable for implementing them. 15. The Commission indicated that the information provided by the State was minimum and revealed that no measures had been taken. In addition, it was waiting for the State to “provide an explanation with regard to the representatives’ observations on the transfer of jurisdiction to the province of Darién,” and that it indicate “whether this transfer meant that the investigations do not include the events denounced by Mr. Vélez Loor during the time he was detained in the La Joya-Joyita prison.” 16. First, the case file provided reveals that, from February 8, 2011, the date on which the Fifth Criminal Circuit Judge relinquished jurisdiction to the Judicial Criminal Circuit of Darién, and June 6, 2012, no investigative measures were taken. However, the waiver of jurisdiction to the Judicial Criminal Circuit of Darién cannot become an obstacle or a mechanism to delay the criminal investigation into the facts denounced. Subsequently, according to the State, on-site inspections were carried out, sworn statements were received, an attempt was made to request judicial assistance from the judicial authorities of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in order to obtain Mr. Vélez Loor’s sworn statement, notes were sent out requesting specific documentary evidence, and information was exchanged with regard to the identification of two police agents. In this regard, the Court considers that, although certain investigative activity by the authorities responsible for the investigation can be observed, the truth is that, more than nine years after the State was advised of the alleged acts of torture and ill-treatment, and more than three years after the investigations were initiated,9 the information provided by the State does not reveal significant progress in the criminal investigation. 8 The representatives also indicated their concern owing to Order No. 52 issued by the Fifth Criminal Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama on February 8, 2011, because they considered it essential that the investigation in this case include all the facts denounced by Mr. Vélez Loor, including those that occurred during his detention in the Public Prison in La Palma and in the La Joya-Joyita Prison in Panama City. 9 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, paras. 235 and 242. 6