73 Immigration of Panama,272 in order to find out “whether Mr. Vélez Loor was arrested [in Panama] and subsequently deported.”273 In response to this, on February 17 and March 30, 2004, the National Office of Immigration and the National Police informed, respectively, on the migratory status of Mr. Vélez Loor in Panama without mentioning the acts of torture and mistreatment denounced.274 238. In response to the communication of September 15, 2004, on September 27, 2004, the Office of Foreign Policy referred to other facts also mentioned by Mr. Vélez, without presenting information related to the alleged acts of torture.275 Furthermore, on October 7 and 24, 2004, Mr. Vélez Loor sent to the General Office of Foreign Policy of Panama electronic mails in reference to the communication of September 15 (supra para. 235). In response to this, on November 17, 2004, the Office of Legal Affairs and Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested information to the person in charge of Consular Affairs of the Embassy of Panama in Ecuador, also without referring to the alleged acts of torture.276 239. In this regard to these verifications, the State denied having omitted to initiate a serious and diligent investigation into the allegations of torture presented by Mr. Vélez Loor since, in the State's opinion, the obligation to investigate contained in the Convention against Torture "is subject to the existence of a well-grounded reason to believe such acts had been committed. Understanding the opposite would imply that any unfounded accusation as to the occurrence of such acts binds the State to conduct frivolous proceedings that, far from being useful in the prevention and punishment of acts of torture, result in the useless debilitation of the judicial remedies.” 240. In this respect, the Court clarifies that the Convention against Torture provides two situations to activate the State’s duty to investigate: on the one hand, whenever an accusation is filed and, on the other hand, whenever there is a well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within State jurisdiction. In these situations, the decision to initiate and conduct an investigation is not up to the State to make, that is to say, it is not a discretional power; instead, this duty to investigate constitutes an imperative obligation of the State that derives from international law and cannot be disregarded or conditioned by domestic acts or legal provisions of any nature.277 In the present case, given that Mr. Vélez Loor had filed, through a third person, a complaint with the Embassy of Panama (supra para. 235) in order to inform the State about the facts, this was a sufficient reason to activate the State’s duty to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. In addition, as the Tribunal has held, even when the application of torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment has not been denounced before the competent authorities by the victim, whenever there are indications that it has occurred, the State must initiate, ex officio and immediately, an impartial, independent, and detailed investigation that 272 Cf. Note A.J. N° 323 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama to the Ambassador of Panama to Ecuador on February 10, 2004 (case file of the evidence, volume III, annex 25 of the application, folio 1305). 273 Note A.J. N° 324 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama to the National Director of Immigration and Naturalization on February 10, 2004 (case file of the evidence, volume VI, annex 2 of the answer to the application, folios 2509 to 2510) and Note A.J. N° 322 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama to the Director of the National Police on February 10, 2004 (case file of the evidence, volume VIII, annex 33 of the answer to the application, folios 3265 to 3266). 274 Cf. Note N° DNMYN-AL-32-04, supra note 70, folios 1202 to 1204, and Note No. AL-0874-04, supra note 69, folios 1206 to 1207. 275 Cf. Note N° DGPE-DC-2666-04 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 27, 2004 (case file of the evidence, volume III, annex 7 of the application, folio 1209) 276 277 Cf. Note A.J. N° 2865, supra note 266. Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 27, para. 347; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 103, para. 75, and Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 157, para. 90.