Mexico City; 6 3) Antonio Salcedo Flores; 7 4) the Criminal Defense Clinic of the Ibero-American University; 8 5) the Permanent Human Rights Seminar of the Acatlán Faculty of Higher Studies of the National Autonomous University of Mexico; 9 the organizations 6) “Otro Tiempo México” and 7) the Latin American Center for Peace, Cooperation and Development 10 and 8) Roberto Borges Zurita. 11 11. Final written arguments and observations. – On July 26, 2022, the Commission presented its final written observations and the State and the representatives submitted their respective final written arguments. On August 4, 2022, the State remitted its observations to the annexes presented with the final written arguments of the representatives. 12. Deliberations on this case. – The Court deliberated this judgment on October 10 and 11, 2022 at its 153rd Regular Session, held in Montevideo, Uruguay, and on November 7, 2022 at its 154th Regular Session. III. JURISDICTION 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, inasmuch as Mexico is a State Party to the American Convention as of March 24, 1981 and it recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on December 16, 1998. IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 14. At the public hearing and in its final written arguments (supra para. 11), the State made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility. It indicated that “by means of the signing, by the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the representatives of the victims, of the Memorandum of Understanding […], in February 2020, the State reiterates its partial acknowledgement of most of the claims made by the representation of the victims, specifically with respect to the specific violations committed against Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López.” It added that “it acknowledges its international responsibility for violating Articles 7, 11, 8 and 25 of the American Convention […], read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, regarding the rights to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to privacy and to judicial protection, as a result of the detention, the vehicle search, the lack of information on the 6 The brief signed by Nashieli Ramírez Hernández, dealing with the conventional nature of the institution of arraigo. 7 The brief signed by Antonio Salcedo Flores, dealing with pre-trial detention sua sponte in Mexico. The brief signed by Thurenna Navarro Parra and Víctor Manuela Parada Picos, dealing with arraigo and pre-trial detention sua sponte in Mexico. 8 9 The brief signed by Miguel Acosta García, Maleny Díaz Brito and Sandra Espinosa Rizo, dealing with: a) arraigo in the Mexican legal order; b) arraigo from a doctrinal viewpoint; c) arraigo from the viewpoint of the Universal System of Human Rights; d) the non-conventional interpretation of arraigo by the Supreme Court of Mexico and e) the National Human Rights Commission and arraigo. 10 The brief signed by Laura Mendoza Molina, Ángeles Corte Ríos, Ricardo Soto Ramírez and Macarena Corte Ríos, partly dealing with the responsibility of the Congress and of the local legislatures regarding the adoption of the constitutional modification under analysis and partly with the “responsibility of the Supreme Court for failing to apply and for violating the American Convention by refusing to find admissible the State’s obligation to comply with the American Convention regarding the constitutional restriction on arraigo, in spite of being inadmissible for the implications on violating the human rights consecrated in the constitutional block, which includes the American Convention.” 11 The brief signed by Roberto Borges Zurita, dealing with: a) arraigo and pre-trial detention sua sponte in Mexico; b) some State conduct related to those institutions and c) the rights that were violated by Mexico in the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico. 6