into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof by the Court, which is the final interpreter of the American Convention. 212 178. The representatives and the Commission argued that, in addition to the existence of rules that restrict liberty that were per se incompatible with the American Convention, in breach of the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law contained in Article 2, in this case the action by the judicial authorities who applied said rules also violated rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence recognized in Articles 7 and 8(2) of the American Convention in relation to the obligation to respect contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz who were deprived of their liberty under the measure of arraigo, for 47 and 31 days, respectively, and for almost 17 years under the measure of mandatory pretrial detention. 179. This Court has no doubt that, by applying measures that per se are contrary to the American Convention, the domestic authorities violated the rights to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, in breach of their obligation to respect the rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. It should be recalled, for example, that on November 24, 2011, the Fifth Criminal Judge justified the continuation of their pretrial detention based on the seriousness of the crime; on that occasion, the judge indicated that the crime of which they were accused “was and continues to be serious,” given that the law in force at the time of its commission “legally precludes the granting of provisional release on bail” (supra para. 81). 180. Furthermore, on January 30, 2018, the First Instance Criminal Judge denied an appeal for review. In her decision, she stated that the length of the trial was attributable to the intense activity of the defendants and decided that Daniel García was a flight risk. Moreover, she assessed the defendant’s flight risk based on subjective criteria such as the defendant’s honesty, loyalty or rectitude, instead of analyzing elements that would make it possible to objectively determine the likelihood of that procedural risk materializing. Thus, in her decision, the judge stated that after analyzing the statements of various witnesses regarding the conduct of Daniel García while he was a public servant, “it can be established that this defendant did not conduct himself with honesty, loyalty or rectitude in the exercise of his duties as private secretary of the Municipal President of Atizapán de Zaragoza, which was the reason given for his dismissal from said municipality […] and this increases the likelihood that the accused will evade justice in the event that the precautionary measure of pretrial detention is modified” (supra para. 86). 181. Regarding the prolongation of the pretrial detention, the Court confirms that, since its reform in 2008, Article 20. IX of the Mexican Constitution establishes that “[p]retrial detention may not exceed the maximum term established by law as punishment for the crime in question and in no case may it exceed two years, unless its extension is due to the defendant’s exercise of his right of defense. If upon expiration of this term a sentence has not been delivered, the defendant shall be released immediately while the proceedings continue, without this precluding the imposition of other precautionary measures.” 182. Thus, Article 20. IX of the Constitution mandates the release of persons in pretrial detention who have remained in this situation for more than two years, unless the prolongation of the process is due to their defense strategy. In this regard, the Court notes that Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz filed several appeals for a review based on the fact that this had become an anticipated sentence; however, their requests were rejected on the grounds that criminal law did not allow for provisional release due to the seriousness of their crime and that the criminal procedure applied to them did not contemplate a review of precautionary measures (supra paras. 81, 83, 84, and 86). In these decisions, no analysis was made in light of the provisions of Article 212 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 219. -48-