68 225. The Court values the political will of the State to improve the conditions of imprisonment of its prisoners and to reform the entire penal system.255 The fact is that Mr. Vélez Loor, who was imprisoned for almost ten months, was subjected to prison conditions that did not respect his integrity and dignity. 226. In relation to the alleged “context of violence and accusations of police abuse in the Panamanian penitentiary centers, to the detriment of a foreign person whose guarantees have been denied,” the Court observes that the representatives did not offer sufficient and assorted evidence referring to the time of the facts that permits the Court to deliberate over the issue. 227. According to the acknowledgment made by the State and the evidence furnished, the Court finds that the conditions of imprisonment at La Palma Public Prison, as well as those of La Joyita Penitentiary Center, as a whole, constituted a cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment contrary to the human being and therefore, configures a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Loor. c) Duty to initiate ex officio a prompt investigation into the alleged acts of torture 228. The Commission as well as the representatives stated that, after he was deported to his country, on January 24, 2004, Mr. Vélez Loor filed a complaint before the Embassy of Panama in Quito, Ecuador, through his lawyer at the time, alleging acts of torture supposedly committed while he was deprived of liberty in Panama. However, it was not until the notification of the report on the merits issued by the Commission that the State initiated a criminal investigation into said complaints. Therefore, they considered the non-compliance of the State of Panama with the obligation to seriously investigate the complaint regarding possible acts of torture occurring under its jurisdiction to be evident. 229. The State emphasized that Mr. Vélez Loor “while he was in the territory of Panama, never filed a complaint against the State on acts of torture committed against him.” Likewise, the State noted that “on March 30, 2003, Mr. Vélez filed a request at the Ombudsman Office to obtain the intervention of said institution only regarding his deportation to Ecuador [and that in t]his request there is no reference to any complaint of mistreatment, torture, denial of medical assistance or others, that according to him, occurred since the first day of his detention. As such, "the first news that the authorities of the Panamanian State had about the alleged acts of torture and mistreatment committed against Mr. Vélez was reported before the Embassy of Panama in Ecuador, on January 24, 2004.” The State sustained that “it immediately initiated an administrative investigation” but “the results of the verification revealed the lack of consistency between the facts and the circumstances described in [said] communication […] and the information forwarded by the different Panamanian authorities.” Hence, “[t]he case file of such complaint remained open but no formal complaint was filed regarding the facts given that there were no elements as adequate basis of such complaint.” Finally, the State referred to the existence and 255 Cf. Statement rendered by Mrs. Roxana Méndez before a public notary (affidavit) on August 12, 2010 (case file of the evidence, tome IX, affidávits, folios 3738 to 3746); Master Plan for the Construction of the Panama Prison Infrastructure undated (case file of the evidence, tome VIII, annex 52 to the response to the application, folios 3533 to 3558); Opening for Bids for the Contract to Design, Construct, and Equipt the New Joya Complex, under the Key Modality at the hands of the Department of Institutional Procurement and Supplier of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice on March 17, 2010 (case file of the evidence, tome VIII, annex 52 to the response to the application, folios 3559 to 3579), Report of the Evaluation Commission Prequalification No. 1 for the Bid to Design, Construct, and Equipt the New Joya Prison Complex under the Key Modality of March 27, 2010 (case file of the evidence, tome VIII, annex 52 to the answer to the application, folios 3580 to 3604), and Resolution No. 125-2010 issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Justice on April 7, 2010 (case file of the evidence, tome VIII, annex 52 of the answer to the application, folios 3605 to 3606).