187. In addition, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty contained in Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the right to be heard and the presumption of innocence recognized in Articles 8(1) and 8(2), in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law established in Article 2 of said instrument, for the application of the concept of arraigo, contained in Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz (supra paras. 151 and 179). 188. Finally, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty contained in Articles 7(1), 7(3), and 7(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the right to the presumption of innocence recognized in Article 8(2) of the same instrument, and the right to equality before the law established in Article 24 of said treaty, all of these rights in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law contained in Article 2 thereof, for the application of mandatory pretrial detention, established in Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution and in the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz (supra paras. 174, 179 and 185). VIII.2. THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY 216 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 217 AND ARTICLES 1, 6 AND 8 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 189. The Commission and the representatives alleged that Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar were subjected to physical and psychological violence during their detention, interrogation and arraigo. In view of these allegations, they noted that, through their internal mechanisms, both in terms of medical checks or examinations, as well as in the investigation of the complaints made, no conclusions have been reached to refute the petitioners’ claims and the respective evidence. They also noted that a series of expert assessments carried out in the course of the criminal proceedings show that the majority opinion among the experts was that Reyes Alpízar had been a victim of physical and psychological torture. Furthermore, they argued that the State has not provided a satisfactory explanation to refute these allegations or to disprove the evidence of their occurrence. Therefore, bearing in mind that these actions would have been intended to break the alleged victims’ psychological resistance and force them to incriminate themselves or implicate certain individuals in criminal actions, they considered that the alleged victims were subjected to acts of torture. In view of the foregoing, they concluded that Mexico violated the right to personal integrity of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, in accordance with Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. 218 They also argued that the failure to investigate the complaints 216 Article 5 of the American Convention. 217 Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 218 The representatives added that Daniel García Rodríguez reported that when he was under arraigo in a hotel, police officers of the state of Mexico came in to order him to watch television on a certain channel, where news related to the arrest of his father, Isaías García Godínez, as well as his brother Isaías García Rodríguez, and his cousins Martin Moreno Rodríguez, Elvia Moreno Rodríguez and Francisco Javier Sánchez García, was being broadcast at different times. They alleged that the threat to gradually arrest his family members - a threat that was carried out - as well as forcing him to watch images on television in which their arrests, names and the alleged crimes of which they were accused were publicly exhibited, constitute, in the opinion of the representatives, a form of “extended” psychological torture, given that the feeling of impotence, frustration, pain and psychological suffering inflicted upon García Rodríguez was not an instantaneous -50-