B. Considerations of the Court 125. This section will analyze the aforementioned arguments in the following order: a) the right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty and the right to be informed of the reasons for the detention; b) the right to be brought promptly before “a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial functions”; c) the application of the measure of arraigo and the subsequent preventive detention of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, and d) conclusion. B.1. The right to not be unlawfully deprived of liberty and the right to be informed of the reasons for detention a) Regarding the legality of the detentions of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 126. It should be recalled that Article 7(2) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the Constitution of the State Party concerned, or by a law established pursuant thereto.” The Court has held that a State’s Constitution, as well as the laws established “pursuant thereto,” must be examined to determine whether they are compatible with Article 7(2) of the American Convention. This entails an analysis of compliance with the requirements established as precisely as possible and “beforehand” in said laws regarding the “reasons” and “conditions” for depriving a person of physical liberty. If domestic provisions have not been observed, either materially or formally, when a person is deprived of his liberty, such deprivation will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention, 162 in light of Article 7(2). 163 127. On the other hand, the Court finds that Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution in force at the time of the arrest of the alleged victims stated that “[t]he authority that executes an arrest warrant shall place the accused at the disposal of the judge, without delay and under his strictest responsibility. Failure to comply with this provision shall be punished under criminal law. […]In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may detain the suspect, placing him immediately at the disposal of the nearest authority and the latter, with the same promptness, shall bring him before the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” 128. Similarly, Article 147 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure Code for the state of Mexico provides that “[w]hen the requirements established in the Constitution of the United Mexican States are met, the court shall immediately issue the arrest warrant requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the accused.” Furthermore, Article 142 of said Code refers to flagrante delicto in the following terms: “Flagrante delicto exists when the person is detained at the moment of committing the offense, or when the suspect is pursued materially, uninterruptedly and immediately after the offense has been committed. […] Flagrante delicto is considered to exist when the person is identified as being responsible by the victim, an eyewitness of the facts, or by whoever participated with him in the commission of the crime; or when the object, instrument or product of the crime is found in his possession; or when there are signs or indications that lead to a well-founded presumption of his participation in the crime; provided that it may constitute a serious crime, and that a period of seventy-two hours has not elapsed from the time of the Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007, Series C No. 170, para. 57; Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 3, 2020. Series C No. 399, para. 61, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 468, para. 121. 162 163 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 116; Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 230, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 121. -34-