when the detainee was placed in the vehicle to be transferred to the Deputy District Attorney’s Office after his arrest, he tried to bribe them. 164 134. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that there is no dispute that the arrest of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz was carried out without a warrant. However, from the State’s argument it appears that Reyes Alpízar Ortiz was already the subject of an inquiry and that, “while conducting an investigation,” the Special Operations Group of the PGJEM “located” or “identified” him, and it is only after this that they would have carried out an identity check. In this regard, it is clear that, according to the information provided by the State, there is no real hypothesis of a random identity check because the “localization” occurred as part of a criminal investigation. As for the alleged bribery, which would have been the in flagrante delicto that served as the basis for the arrest of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, the Court notes that it would have occurred after his arrest, after he was “located” by the authorities and detained. 135. Therefore, given that the initial arrest of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz was carried out without a warrant and without the hypothesis of flagrante delicto at the time, under the terms of Articles 16 of the Mexican Constitution and Articles 147 and 142 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, this Court finds that the State violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. b) The right to be informed of the reasons for detention 136. Article 7(4) of the American Convention refers to two guarantees for the person who is being detained: i) oral or written information on the reasons for the detention, and ii) notification of the charges, which must be in writing. 165 The information on the “reasons” for the detention must be provided “at the time of the arrest,” as a mechanism to prevent unlawful or arbitrary detentions from the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, to ensure the individual’s right of defense. 166 The Court has also indicated that the agent who makes the arrest must provide information in simple, jargon-free language of the essential facts and legal grounds on which the detention is based. Thus, Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied if only the legal basis is mentioned. 167 137. It is an uncontested fact that Daniel García Rodríguez was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time he was detained by the police and taken to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to make a statement (supra para. 68). The State explained that it was only when he was notified in writing of the arraigo order issued against him by the Fifth Criminal Judge of First Instance of the Tlalnepantla Judicial District on February 25, 2002, that Daniel García Rodríguez was informed of the reasons for his detention. It should be recalled that, at this point, Daniel García had been detained for several hours. Thus, it is clear that the State violated the right to be informed in a timely manner of the reasons for detention contained in Article 7(4) of the Convention, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez. 164 Cf. Government of the state of Mexico. Attorney General’s Office. Special Operations Group. File ATI/II/3672/01. Matter: Person remanded in custody. Tlalnepantla of Baz, October 25, 2002 (evidence file, folio 827). 165 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 010. Series C No. 220, para. 106; Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 246, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 81. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 476, footnote 70. 166 167 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. 71, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits and reparations, supra, para. 52. -36-