iv. On the national and international rulings on arraigo 149. The Court notes that the question of the validity of the institution of arraigo has been considered by some domestic instances; for example, the Supreme Court of Mexico, which resolved the writ of unconstitutionality No. 20/2003 on January 5, 2005. In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed arraigo and decided that the institution governed by Article 122 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of Chihuahua, the text of which was similar to that established in the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure and the LFDO, violated the guarantee of personal liberty found in the Federal Constitution and therefore requested its annulment. 123 150. In addition, the Ombudsperson of Mexico stated in September 2019 that “arraigo stipulated as a precautionary measure […] is an institution that contravenes the Convention […] since it arbitrarily deprives liberty, which is prohibited by Article 7(3) of the [American Convention] and by Article 8(2) since it is ordered before the judicial proceedings begin. […] as such, arraigo is a type of ‘preconviction’ punishment that is used as a means to investigate and not as a consequence of an investigation that has uncovered sufficient elements that would permit linking a person with the imprisonable offense, thus contravening the right to the presumption of innocence and, ultimately, due process.[…] Lastly, arraigo is a measure that contravenes the right to legal security and the principle of pro persona because it is used against a person who is not under formal criminal proceedings, which creates legal insecurity, and because it is an extreme precautionary measure, considered internationally as arbitrary detention, violating the principle of pro persona for not having applied a precautionary measure that is less burdensome.” 124 In the same sense, the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District stated that arraigo “violated diverse human rights both in its application and in the manner that it is implemented.” 125 151. Various international bodies have affirmed that the institution of arraigo contravened international human rights treaties; for example, the decisions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that characterized arraigo as a “de facto pre-trial that takes place not before a judge, but before officials from the Office of the Prosecutor General, who are thus empowered to perform judicial acts and evaluate evidence and present the means of proof before the person is charged” and that “amounts to an arbitrary form of preventive detention, in view of the lack of oversight by the courts.” 126 152. The UN Committee against Torture, likewise, indicated in 2007 that it was concerned about “the institution of arraigo penal (short-term detention), which is reported to have been converted into a form of pre-trial detention using units guarded by judicial police and personnel from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, where suspects can be held for 30 days – up to 90 days in some states – while an investigation is being carried out to gather evidence and question witnesses.” Although the Committee noted with satisfaction “the federal Supreme Court’s decision in September 2005 declaring arraigo penal unconstitutional, […] it was concerned that the court’s decision relates only to the Penal Code of Chihuahua State and would seem not binding on courts in other states.” It recommended that “in light of the federal Supreme Court’s decision, the State party should ensure that arraigo penal is eliminated both from legislation and in actual practice, at the federal and state levels.” 127 153. Likewise, the UN Human Rights Committee in a 2010 report “express[ed] its concern regarding the illegality of the use of ‘arraigo penal’ [short-term detention] in the context of combating organized crime, which allows the possibility of holding an individual without charge for up to 80 days, without 123 Cf. Expert opinion of Luis Raúl González Pérez, offered at the public hearing. 124 Cf. Expert opinion of Luis Raúl González Pérez, offered at the public hearing. Cf. Human Rights Commission of the Federal District, Recommendation 02/2011, cited by expert Luis Raúl González Pérez at the public hearing. 125 126 Cf. United Nations, Report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to Mexico (October 27 to November 10, 2002), E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3 of December 17, 2002, paras. 49 and 50. United Nations, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture (February 6, 2007), CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, para. 15. 127 36