## Facts

- Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, an Ecuadorian national, repeatedly entered Panama without required authorization and was deported in 1996 and 2002.
- Panama’s Decree Law 16 of 1960 authorized a two-year sentence of agricultural work in the Coiba Penal Colony for foreigners who evaded deportation or reentered without authorization.
- In November 2002, police arrested Vélez Loor in Darién Province for lacking valid documents; authorities confiscated property including cash and identity papers.
- He alleged abusive treatment during apprehension and transfer, including restraints and prolonged immobilization before being moved to Metetí.
- He was prosecuted under Decree Law 16 and sentenced to a two-year term in Coiba Penal Colony for an immigration-related infraction.
- From November 2002 to September 2003, he was held in facilities used for common criminal detainees rather than in immigration-specific custody.
- He alleged torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and complained of harsh detention conditions.
- Panama did not conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment.
- The case proceeded from the Inter-American Commission to the Inter-American Court, where Panama raised preliminary objections and made a partial acknowledgment of responsibility.

## Issues

1. Whether Panama’s arrest, prosecution, and detention of an irregular migrant under Decree Law 16 violated the right to personal liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary detention.
2. Whether the proceedings and remedies available to Vélez Loor satisfied judicial guarantees and judicial protection, including meaningful review of detention and access to counsel and consular assistance.
3. Whether imposing a two-year penal sentence for immigration noncompliance violated the principle of legality.
4. Whether the conditions of confinement and alleged abuse violated the right to humane treatment and applicable anti-torture obligations, and whether Panama breached its duty to investigate.

## Decision

- The Court rejected, in relevant part, Panama’s preliminary objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and proceeded to the merits.
- The Court found Panama internationally responsible for violating rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, the principle of legality, and personal integrity.
- The Court held Panama responsible for failing to investigate alleged torture and for failing to ensure access to justice without discrimination.
- The Court ruled that detention for immigration violations must not be punitive and, if used, must be necessary and proportionate.
- The Court ordered reparations, including compensation, medical and psychological care, publication measures, an effective criminal investigation, and reforms including specialized migrant detention facilities staffed by trained civilian personnel.

## Legal Principles

- Detention for immigration infractions must be administrative rather than punitive; imprisonment as punishment for migration status or noncompliance is incompatible with human rights guarantees.
- Any immigration-related deprivation of liberty must be lawful, non-arbitrary, necessary, proportionate, and subject to effective judicial control.
- Migrants detained for immigration purposes should be held in specialized facilities appropriate to their legal situation, not in ordinary prisons intended for criminal sanctions.
- Due process in immigration-related detention requires clear notice of reasons for detention, access to legal assistance, and effective mechanisms to challenge the legality and duration of confinement.
- The principle of legality is violated when a broadly framed migration rule is used to impose penal consequences without the safeguards and legal certainty required for criminal punishment.
- States must promptly, seriously, and effectively investigate credible allegations of torture or ill-treatment and provide effective remedies without discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Panama’s use of penal imprisonment to enforce immigration rules, combined with deficient procedural safeguards, harmful detention conditions, and failure to investigate alleged torture, breached multiple protected rights and required both individual reparations and structural reforms to ensure non-punitive, rights-compliant migration detention practices.


Vélez Loor v. Panama, Judgment (IACtHR Nov. 23, 2010)