17 processing of the [instant] case,”41 and based on this, the Court understands that they have standing to put forward the legal claims they consider relevant or appropriate in the specific case. 56. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that it has accurately determined the purpose of the power-of-attorney, in compliance with the requirements previously established by this Tribunal, and that the power-of-attorney granted to the representatives does not contain any limitation that would prevent them from alleging the violation of certain rights of the Convention against Torture before this Tribunal; therefore, the Court rejects the second preliminary matter. V JURISDICTION 57. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case, pursuant to the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention. The State of Panama ratified the American Convention on June 22, 1978, which entered into force for the State on July 18, 1978, and on May 9, 1990, it accepted “the binding jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court on Human Rights over all the cases related to the interpretation and application of the American Convention […].” Furthermore, on August 28, 1991, Panama deposited the instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which entered into force for the State on September 28, 1991. VI PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 58. In the instant case, the State made a partial acknowledgment of the facts and of its international responsibility for several alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention. Hence, in its response to the application, the State assumed partial responsibility: For the violation of the right to personal liberty, enshrined in Articles 7(1), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) therein, regarding Mr. Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor, under the following terms: The violation of Article 7(1) of the Convention on the grounds of not having partially observed the compliance with the guarantees contained in Articles 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), and 7(6) of the Convention regarding the arrest by Order 7306 of December 6, 2002; i) The violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention on the grounds of not having notified Mr. Vélez Loor of the content of Order 7306 of December 6, 2002, issued by the National Office of Immigration and Naturalization; ii) The violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention on the grounds of not having formally informed him of the charges that would be considered by the National Office of Immigration and Naturalization for the imposition of the sentence of two years’ imprisonment; and, iii) The violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention on the grounds of not having brought Mr. Vélez Loor before the officer of the National Office of Immigration and Naturalization in order to determine his responsibility for the alleged violation of the terms of his deportation ordered in January 2002. iv) For the violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, regarding Mr. Jesus Tranquilino Vélez Loor, as to the arrest conditions limited to the time of the events, specifically excluding the alleged mistreatment and acts of torture, as well as the lack of medical care while imprisoned in Panama. 41 Special power-of –attorney granted by Jesús Tranquilino Vélez, supra note 40.