Foreign Policy Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a reply to Mr. Vélez Loor, 3 asking him to provide proof of the payment that he had made. The State indicated that it made this request because there was no evidence in the Directorate of Migration archives that payment in that amount had been made for a visa. The State says that it never received any reply to its request regarding this matter. 28. With regard to the complaints relating to physical mistreatment, the State points out that during his imprisonment, Mr. Vélez Loor was treated by the prison doctor on six occasions. The State notes that on April 10, 2003, Mr. Vélez was summoned for a medical evaluation but that he refused to go. On April 22, 2003, he was evaluated for headaches and dizziness, the product of a former cranial fracture, and a CAT scan of the brain was prescribed. On June 2, 2003, Mr. Vélez said he was on a hunger strike and said that he would not be taking any medicine. The State points out that on June 11, 2003, Mr. Vélez was attended to on account of his having been on a hunger strike for eleven days, with half of his lips stitched together. At this point he was alleging that he had not been attended to and that he was suffering from gastritis, which had been diagnosed as a consequence of his refusal to take any food, and medical treatment was ordered. On June 12, 2003 Mr. Vélez was taken by security personnel to the Clinic but he denied that he required medical attention and said that he would refuse any medicine. According to the State, on June 27, 2003, Mr. Vélez was once again examined by the doctor, who reached the conclusion that the detainee had light-to-moderate anemia and clinical signs of likely gastritis. The State adds that at one point Mr. Vélez was moved to the clinic at the La Joya prison to receive medical care for a common ailment. 29. According to the State, the Directorate of the Penitentiary System pointed out that in the medical check-ups that had been carried out, there was no evidence of physical abuse, nor did the prison report suggest that Mr. Vélez had been the victim of the alleged abuse. 30. In wrapping up the statement in its defense, the State argues that given that the focus of the investigation thus far has been of an administrative nature, no criminal investigation strictly speaking has been set in motion, “inasmuch as the petitioner has filed no formal application with the domestic judicial authorities having jurisdiction to order the performance of the necessary inquiries in response to the allegations that have been made, to clarify the facts of the case, and to try and prosecute those responsible.” The State calls upon the Commission to kindly lend “its assistance so that a request can be made to the petitioner to provide all additional evidence and information to enable the national government to initiate appropriate criminal investigations warranted by the case at hand, in order to clarify the facts described by Mr. Vélez Loor in his petition and thereby ensure, through the domestic jurisdiction of the Panamanian Government, that those responsible for perpetrating the alleged crimes may be brought to justice.” Finally, the State requests that the petition be deemed inadmissible and that the case in question be filed. IV. ANALYSIS CONCERNING JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction 1. The Commission's jurisdiction rationae personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 31. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names Jesus Velez Loor as the alleged victim, whose rights under the American Convention Panama has pledged to respect and guarantee. As for the State, the Commission points out that Panama signed the American Convention on November 22, 1969 and ratified it on June 22, 1978. Additionally, Panama ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on August 28, 1991. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction rationae personae to examine the petition. 32. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci because the alleged violations are said to have taken place within the territory of a State party to the American Convention. 3 Note DGPE-CC-2866-04 of September 27, 2004. 6