VIII.1. RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY 158 AND TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 159 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 160 AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 161 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 115. The Court will now examine the arguments of the parties and the Commission in relation to the State’s responsibility for the violation of the rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence. A.1. The right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty and the right to be informed of the reasons for the detention. 116. The Commission and the representatives stated that the alleged victims were arrested without being presented with a warrant issued prior to their detention and without complying with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They added that they only became aware of the charges against them and the reasons for their detention when they were brought before a judge, 47 days after having been arrested in the case of Daniel García Rodríguez, and 34 days in the case of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. In view of the foregoing, they considered that the State violated Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 117. The State argued that Daniel García Rodríguez was made aware of all the charges against him when he was arrested. In particular, it maintained that he appeared voluntarily before the Public Prosecutor’s Office to testify in relation to the murder of María de los Ángeles Tamés Pérez. Subsequently, and by virtue of his statement, he was placed at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and finally that same day, he was notified in writing of the arraigo order issued against him. At this time, the detention was formalized and he was informed of all the offenses of which he was accused. As for the situation of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, it indicated that he was arrested on October 25, 2002, when the Special Operations Group of the PGJEM asked for his identification at a public transportation stop and he tried to flee. After being arrested on the spot, he allegedly stated that he knew that he was being arrested for the murder of Mayor Tamés Pérez. In addition, the State alleged that when he was about to be taken to the Deputy District Attorney’s offices in Tlalnepantla, he tried to bribe the agents so that they would let him go. The State argued that at this time he was told that he was being arrested for the crime of bribery committed in flagrante delicto. He remained in custody until October 28, when the arraigo order was issued against him. A.2. The right to be brought promptly before a judge 118. The Commission and the representatives noted that Daniel García Rodríguez was arrested on February 25, 2002, and that Reyes Alpízar Ortiz was detained on October 25, of the same year. On the very day that Daniel García was arrested, the Fifth Criminal Judge ordered his arraigo. In the case of Reyes Alpízar, the arraigo was decreed on October 28. The Commission and the representatives held that the alleged victims appeared before a judge on April 11 and November 28, 2002, respectively - that is, 47 and 34 days later. They added that the arraigo order is not equivalent to the judicial control stipulated in Article 7(5), since there is no record that the alleged victims appeared before a judicial authority in the prescribed terms. Thus, they concluded that the 158 Article 7 of the American Convention. 159 Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 160 Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 161 Article 2 of the American Convention. -32-