58 legal system200 and is therefore satisfied by modifying,201 derogating, or otherwise annulling202 or amending203 such rules or practices, as appropriate.204 195. The reforms introduced in the Panamanian legal framework in relation to immigration issues do not annul the violations committed to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor by the application of Decree Law N° 16 of 1960 and the State’s noncompliance with the duty to adapt such legislation to its international obligations as from the date of the ratification of the American Convention (supra Chapter V). Therefore, the Tribunal deems that the State violated Article 2 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 therein. The reforms so mentioned shall be considered for all pertinent purposes in the chapter corresponding to the reparations (infra Chapter IX). VIII-2 RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS ENSHRINED IN THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 196. The arguments of the Commission and the representatives, under Article 5 of the American Convention and the Convention against Torture, coincide as to: i) the prison conditions, and ii) the obligation to investigate into the acts of torture. In addition, the representatives presented arguments regarding the alleged acts of torture and the obligation to codify torture as a crime; these arguments will be considered as they complement the obligation to investigate the alleged acts of torture (supra para. 47). The State, moreover, acknowledged international responsibility for the violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] contained in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, only as to certain prison conditions to which Mr. Vélez Loor was subjected while he was imprisoned, with the exception of the obligation to provide adequate medical care and the water supply. (supra para. 67). 197. In fact, the State “acknowledg[ed] that the serious deficiencies in the national prison system negatively affect the right to integrity [humane treatment] of the individuals deprived of liberty.” In this respect, it made special emphasis "on the physical, structural and functional serious deficiencies,” which contradict domestic laws as well as the international standards regarding the matter established by the country. In relation to the La Palma Public Jail and La Joya-La Joyita Complex, "it acknowledg[ed] the existence, as documented by the different Panamanian authorities, of the following problems, among others: structural deficiencies in the detention centers; problems in the provision of water supply; prison overcrowding; deficiency of the systems to classify prisoners; deficiencies in the re-socialization and 200 Cf. Case of “The last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C N° 73, para. 88; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 57, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 103, para. 172. 201 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 145, para. 113; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 200, para. 57, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 103, para. 172. 202 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C N°. 123, para 94; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 122, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 200, para. 57. 203 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 87; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 202, para. 122, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 200, para. 57. 204 Cf. Case of “The last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al), supra note 200, para. 87; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 202, para. 122, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 200, para. 57.