paragraph 1). Indeed, during the proceedings on the merits, the Court noted that “Panama ha[s] two migratory shelters, which are located in the capital city, so that the persons retained in border areas, whether irregular migrants or individuals seeking international protection, [were] lodged in provincial prisons or police stations until it was possible to transfer them to the shelters of the National Immigration Service in Panama City.”10 23. The Court recalls that, according to paragraph 272 of the Judgment, this reparation was ordered as a measure to ensure non-repetition of events such as those of the instant case; hence, its purpose is to ensure that “persons deprived of liberty for migratory issues, under no circumstance be taken to prisons or other places where they may be detained together with individuals accused or convicted of criminal offenses.” Thus, the Court notes that the information presented by the State indicates that: (i) there are still only two shelters, and (ii) these shelters are only located in Panama City. Consequently, the information provided reveals no difference in this regard from the situation when the Judgment was delivered. In addition, the State has not explained what happens to those who are retained in other areas of the country. 24. Furthermore, according to the information provided, the Court notes that the men’s shelter has been moved, without the State specifying whether the new establishment was built especially for this purpose or, if applicable, whether its facilities were adapted to offer physical conditions and a regime appropriate for migrants. In addition, regarding the State’s other assertions concerning the civilian status of the personnel in charge and their training, as well as concerning the information apparently provided on the consulates, the Court reiterates that no proof was provided that would allow it to verify this information. 25. Based on the above, the Court requests Panama to present the supporting documentation, as well as information on the situation throughout the country, that substantiates the measures that have been adopted to ensure that there are establishments with sufficient capacity to accommodate those persons whose detention is necessary and proportionate in the specific case for migratory issues, so that no person may be detained because of his or her irregular migratory status together with individuals who are being prosecuted and/or have been convicted for committing criminal offenses. e) Obligation to implement, within a reasonable time, an education and training program on international standards concerning 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 (sixteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 26. The State advised that the National Immigration Service has a Victims’ Attention Unit headed by officials specialized in psychology, whose main functions are to attend “to migrants suspected of being victims of people smuggling and trafficking, humanitarian cases, and exceptional cases.” According to the State, this Unit coordinates and directs the Psycho-educational Program, with the support of the Immigration Academy, whose main purpose is to provide on-going training to the officials of the National Immigration Service. Moreover, the main topics discussed in this program are: management of human relations, leadership, emotional intelligence, stress management, personality development, human rights, management of depression, work motivation, teamwork, ethical and moral values, self-esteem, dissemination of the institution’s internal regulations, humanitarian cases and 10 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 199. 9