agencies, and they “work in conjunction with the National Immigration Service.” Lastly, the State indicated that the shelters contain telephone directories and posters with information on consulates, organizations, foundations and telephone numbers for each of them, and that this information is provided in Spanish and in English. Furthermore, in the shelters, access can be had to the webpage: http://www.panamatramita.gob.pa/. In addition, visits to the shelters are coordinated with the Consuls, who also provide the information required, and also non-governmental organizations specialized in providing advisory services, as well as agencies of the United Nations with which cooperation agreements have been signed to provide health care to those detained. 20. The representatives presented the following observations on the State’s reports (supra having seen paragraph 3): (a) it was not possible to infer the average daily occupation of each shelter referred to by the State from the information provided and this figure is essential in order to assess whether the installed capacity is sufficient to accommodate those who are detained, because the State has only provided the average number of entries and the length of the stays when “the deportation cycle is completed,” without indicating the numbers for each shelter, or the actual length of stays or the percentage of cases in which the deportation cycle is completed in 10 days. In addition, there appeared to be inconsistencies in the information provided by the State as regards the capacity of the shelters; (b) the State had not provided any probative element that could allow verification of its data, or of the physical conditions that it asserts exist in the shelters; (c) they considered that it was necessary to have more elements than those provided in the State’s report in order to assess whether or not an appropriate regime for migrants was observed including, especially, the possibility of not separating the family group based solely on the gender of its members, and the special measures for migrant children; (d) the State had merely indicated that the inspectors receive periodic training, without detailing what this training consists of, whether it is compulsory, how often it is offered, the specific content, the way in which the personnel are chosen and evaluated, and the way in which the State ensures that the training is effective and has an impact on the way in which the said officials perform their work; (e) the State’s report refers only to the “inspectors who guard” the shelters, when the training should extend to all the personnel of detention centers for migrants and not only to the guards; (f) of all the information that the Court ordered to be available in the shelters, the State only referred to the consulates, omitting information on legal advisers and organizations that could provide support to the migrants, as well as data on the legal status of those detained. In addition, the State did not indicate how it ensured that this information was visible to those detained, or in which languages it was posted. Based on the foregoing, the representatives considered that the information provided by the State was insufficient and did not allow a clear and objective assessment of the status of compliance with this measure of reparation. Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to forward complete and detailed information on the measures adopted to comply with its obligation to ensure that the detention conditions of migrants were appropriate. 21. The Commission agreed with the representatives that the information provided by the State was insufficient to determine whether these places met the conditions stipulated by the Court in the Judgment; thus, it awaited any supplementary information that the State might present on this aspect. 22. First, the Court underscores that the information provided by the State refers to the existence of two shelters on the premises of the National Immigration Service in Panama City and their physical conditions, without attaching any documentary support that would allow the Court to assess this, especially in relation to the information that was provided during the proceedings on the merits and assessed in the Judgment (supra having seen 8