obligation to periodically review such measures (supra para. 184), this Court orders the domestic authorities to evaluate, within one month from notification of this judgment, the relevance of maintaining the precautionary measures against the defendants. To this end, they must take into account the standards mentioned in this judgment regarding the legitimate purposes of a restriction of liberty (danger of flight and preservation of evidence), the appropriateness of the measure as well as its necessity and strict proportionality (supra paras. 154 to 163). Furthermore, all incriminating evidence obtained under coercion or torture must be excluded when adopting and reviewing the precautionary measures for Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. B.2. Duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the acts of torture to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 286. The Court recalls that in the instant case it concluded that the State was responsible for acts of torture against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz during the period that they were under arraigo (supra Chapter VIII.2.B.1). Therefore, the State must, within a reasonable time and with due diligence, investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the acts of torture to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. To this end, the State may reopen preliminary investigation TLA/MR/III/1973/2006 (supra paras. 105 to 112) or initiate a new investigation. B.3. Duty to investigate, prosecute and punish other human rights violations to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 287. The Court was able to establish that Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar: a) were unlawfully arrested; b) were not informed of the reasons for their detention; c) were not promptly brought before a judge; d) did not have access to a technical defense in the first days following their detention, and e) were arbitrarily deprived of their liberty through the application of mandatory pretrial detention. As a result, their rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, judicial guarantees, and privacy were violated to their detriment. 288. In this regard, the Court has no doubt that these facts were attributable to the State due to the actions and omissions of several police officers and judicial authorities, which resulted in the international responsibility of the State. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to order the State to undertake, in accordance with applicable domestic law, the pertinent disciplinary, administrative or other proceedings, in order to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the human rights violations declared in this case. C. Guarantees of non-repetition C.1. Legislative reforms 289. The Commission and the representatives requested that the State be ordered to adapt “the domestic legal system, including the constitutional and legal norms that maintain the concept of arraigo, in order to definitively eliminate it.” While this occurs, it should “ensure that the judicial authorities required to apply the measure of arraigo cease to apply it through a proper control of conventionality, in light of the corresponding inter-American standards.” 290. For their part, the representatives requested that the State be ordered to “eliminate from the domestic legal system the concept of preventive detention for serious crimes and the constitutional concept of automatic or mandatory pretrial detention.” In addition, they requested that “the judicial authority should periodically and ex officio review the measures restricting personal liberty, whenever the circumstances that gave rise to their imposition change or when they are no longer necessary and proportionate, and should also provide ex officio the reports of the Precautionary Measures Units for the technical assessment of the review.” -73-