commission of the probable offense.” Likewise, Article 143 of the Code establishes that “[t]he Public Prosecutor’s Office will order the arrest in urgent cases, in writing, stating the grounds and the evidence that certify the requirements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. In this case, the Public Prosecutor’s Office must have proven the corpus delicti and the probable responsibility of the accused.” i. The case of Daniel García Rodríguez 129. With respect to the argument regarding the legality of the detention of Daniel García Rodríguez, the Court notes that there is no dispute over the fact that, in the morning hours, he was taken by agents of the PGJEM to make a statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 68). In this regard, the State explained that Daniel García Rodríguez had been summoned to testify before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that the procedural legislation in force at the time provided that in cases where there was a well-founded fear that summons would be disobeyed, the persons summoned to testify could be brought in by the police. 130. On this point, the Court notes that the summons issued to Daniel García Rodríguez ordering him to appear before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as mentioned by the State, was not presented to this Court, nor was there any clear reference to the law under which said summons would have been issued. 131. Based on the foregoing, the “accompaniment” of Daniel García Rodríguez by PGJEM police officers to ensure that would go to testify before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, constituted an arrest that should have complied with the requirements stipulated in domestic law, that is, an arrest warrant should have been issued (Article 16 of the Constitution and Article 147 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico). Moreover, in the case of Daniel García Rodríguez there is no dispute between the parties over the fact that none of the elements of flagrante delicto (Article 16 of the Constitution and Article 142 of the 2000 Criminal Procedure Code for the state of Mexico) are present. Furthermore, the domestic authorities did not obtain an arrest warrant from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the urgent case provided for in Article 143 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico. 132. Consequently, the detention of Daniel García Rodríguez did not comply with any of the norms established in domestic law, and therefore violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention to his detriment. ii. The case of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 133. Regarding the detention of Reyes Alpízar, there is no dispute over the fact that he was arrested after he allegedly attempted to flee from an identity check, on October 25, 2002 (supra para. 74). On this point, the State indicated in its answering brief that “from the criminal proceedings described in the police report” it appears that “in the course of the investigation,” he was “located,” “tried to flee” and that “at the time of his arrest,” Reyes Alpízar stated that he “knew that at any moment he was going to be arrested for having been involved in the death of a mayor.” In addition, “he justified, at that moment, his change of address and physical appearance, because he knew that they were looking for him, and he also offered them money and a house so that they would let him go.” According to the State, these circumstances legally justified his presentation before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, “which determined that he was in flagrante delicto and ordered his legal detention for the crime of bribery because there were indications that he occasionally met with other persons to commit serious crimes.” Moreover, in its brief of final arguments, the State indicated, in relation to this same point, that Reyes Alpízar was being investigated for the murder of María de los Ángeles Tamés Pérez and that, in this context, the Special Operations Group of the PGJEM “identified him” at a public transportation stop. Subsequently, they asked him to “identify himself” after which Reyes Alpízar allegedly tried to escape. According to the agents of the PGJEM’s Special Operations Group who made the arrest, -35-