25. Regarding the definition of torture, the new Article 156-A of the Panamanian Criminal Code establishes that: Whoever inflicts physical or mental suffering on a person for the purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty or for any other purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of ten to fifteen years. This punishment shall be imposed on the person who applies methods intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. 26. In paragraph 215 of the Judgment, the Court indicated that the previous regulation: merely refers to the conduct of public officials and only when the victims have been detained. Hence, these articles do not contemplate the criminal liability of any other “person who, at the instigation of a public servant, […] orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it, or is an accomplice thereto”, according to Article 3(b) of the Convention against Torture. Furthermore, such an imprecise description of this act violates the requirements of the principle of legal and juridical certainty. 27. In this regard, the Court takes cognizance that the definition used in the current legislation transcribes Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 14 and does not limit the perpetrators to public servants. Accordingly, the Court considers that the amendment to the law complies with its requirements regarding the definition of torture. As to the representatives’ observation that the definition does not include different presumptions of instigation or participation, the Court considers that there is no indication that these cannot be contemplated under the general presumptions of liability provided for in criminal law. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and Articles 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That pursuant to the terms of considering paragraphs 25 to 27 of this Order, the State has complied with the following measure of reparation: define the offense […] of torture (Operative Paragraph 16 of the Judgment). 2. That in accordance with the terms of considering paragraphs 21 to 24 of this 14 Article 2: For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood as any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood as the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. […] 8