15 Loor was tortured during the time he was under Panamanian custody,”35 however, it found the State responsible “for not carrying out a contemporaneous investigation of the torture allegations against Mr. Vélez Loor.”36 46. In its application before this Court, the Commission referred only abstractly to the allegations of torture made within the scope of the present case, but without relating them to the facts or acts that would constitute torture, nor did it make any allusion to the circumstances of the manner, time, and place in which they occurred. Likewise, it refers to a medical and psychological examination conducted on Mr. Vélez Loor in Bolivia in June of 2008, and it observes that the same examination conforms in some aspects to the complaints of torture presented by Mr. Vélez Loor in the framework of another petition against Ecuador that also was processed before the Commission. 47. It was the representatives in their brief of pleadings and arguments, and the alleged victim in his declaration before this Court, who referred in a detailed manner to the events that constituted the alleged acts of torture. In this understanding, the Tribunal considers that the information provided by the representatives and the alleged victim himself with respect to the alleged acts of torture and the manner, time, and place in which they had occurred is complementary to the factual framework of the complaint in regard to clarifying to the events over which falls the duty to investigate, but these events cannot be considered autonomously as constitutive of a violation in light of the complaint present by the Commission (supra para. 43). Under this understanding, the Court shall make an allusion to the events that constitute torture according to the representatives of the alleged victim only as an object from which to proceed to analyze the alleged obligation to investigate these acts included by the Commission in its application. 48. It then follows, in conformity with the factual framework of the present case, it is not viable to analyze the events presented by the representatives as a separate violation within Articles 5(2) of the American Convention and 2 of the Convention against Torture. However, these events shall be taken into account, inasmuch as they give content to the duty of the State to initiate immediately an investigation in respect to the supposed acts of torture. 49. Notwithstanding the abovementioned, upon analyzing the events of the complaint relative to the conditions under which the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vélez Loor developed, the Tribunal shall be able to make judgments on other legal aspects in reference to humane treatment established in Article 5 of the Convention. 50. Regarding the arguments of the representatives related to the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, the Tribunal considers that, in the current state of evolution of the system of protection of human rights, it is within the power of the representative of the alleged victim to include legal claims different than those filed by the Commission, as long as they are founded within the factual basis of the application. Moreover, the State has had every procedural opportunity to submit its defense arguments concerning said pleadings before this Tribunal.37 Therefore, such 35 In this respect, it concluded that “given the nature of the contradictory allegations regarding the alleged acts of torture and the lack of specific information of the parties, the Commission does not have sufficient information to find that acts of torture had been committed by the State. […] Therefore, taking into account it does not have sufficient evidence of acts of torture, the Commission concludes that the State has not violated article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture in relation to the allegations of torture of Mr. Vélez Loor”. Report N° 37/09 (Merits), Case 12.581, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor - Panama, March 27, 2009 (case file of the evidence, tome I, appendix 1 to the application, folio 31). 36 Report No. 37/09, supra note 35. 37 Cf. Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 39.