oil, petroleum or petrochemicals, crimes committed by violent means such as weapons and explosives, crimes involving firearms and explosives for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as well as serious crimes determined by law against national security, the free development of the personality, and health. 296. In this regard, the Court notes that some of the aspects contrary to the American Convention that had been pointed out in the chapter on the Merits (supra paras. 164-174), still persist and were even expanded in subsequent legislation. These aspects are: a) no reference is made to the purposes of preventive detention, nor to the procedural risks that it seeks to prevent; b) it does not allow the possibility of analyzing the application of this precautionary measure through an assessment of its necessity in relation to other measures less harmful to the rights of the defendant, such as alternative measures to deprivation of liberty, and c) the application of preventive detention is mandatory for certain crimes considered serious once the material assumptions have been established, without any analysis of the need for precautionary measures in light of the particular circumstances of the case. 297. As for the regulations related to provisional release and release on bail contained in Article 319 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, these have been reformed and, instead, Article 194 of the current Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico (reformed in 2009), establishes that: Article 194. Pretrial detention is applicable in the following cases: A. Ex officio: I. In the case of the crimes of intentional homicide, rape and kidnapping, and the attempted commission of said crimes; II. Crimes committed by violent means, provided that serious harm is caused to the physical integrity of persons, as well as those committed with weapons, explosives or others that by their nature may cause danger; and III. In the following crimes against the free development of the personality provided for in the State Criminal Code: a) Article 204, Sections I, II, III; b) Pornography of minors and disabled persons contained in Article 206, Sections I, II and IV; and c) Trafficking of persons. IV. Those classified as serious in the General Laws. […]. c) Conclusion 298. Based on the foregoing, although the regulations through which arraigo and mandatory pretrial detention were applied to the facts of the case have changed, this Court has no doubt that the aspects that make them incompatible with the Convention, as indicated above, persist in their current wording. These aspects have led this Court to declare that the rules that include the concepts of arraigo (Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico) and mandatory pretrial detention (Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico as well as Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution after it was reformed in 2008) were contrary to the American Convention and to the State’s obligation to adapt the provisions of domestic law as established in Article 2 of the American Convention. 299. The Court recalls that according to Article 2 of the American Convention, the general obligation of the State includes the adoption of measures to eliminate norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees established in the Convention, and the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to the effective observance of those guarantees. 278 278 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 207; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C. No. 68, para. 137; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. -75-