146. Regarding the concept of arraigo, this Court recalls that in the judgment in the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, it indicated that, in general terms, any pre-procedural measure that restricts a person’s liberty in order to investigate a crime that he or she allegedly committed is intrinsically contrary to the provisions of the American Convention and clearly violates the rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence. 178 147. In relation to the arguments on this issue, the Court notes that the State indicated, during the public hearing in this case, that the practice of arraigo no longer exists in all the states and, therefore, the procedural code does not contemplate it at the state level. 179 Accordingly, it affirmed that no state imposes a precautionary measure without a dispute between the parties, since arraigo is an exceptional measure for organized crime at the federal level, which is established in Article 16 of the Constitution. 180 Similarly, with regard to the alleged inadequacy of the legal framework, the State referred to the legislative, executive and judicial mechanisms to reform and adopt the legal measures necessary to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. Specifically, it pointed out that if the same facts of the instant case were to occur today, the arraigo measure imposed on the alleged victims would not be appropriate, and that the law has gradually been reformed, “permeating fundamental rights,” such as the right to liberty. 181 The State added that there is currently a process to “move toward conventionality, toward a greater alignment to ensure that not only the measures of arraigo and mandatory pretrial detention, but any other restriction to a human right - for example freedom of movement, which is restricted to administrative or judicial limitations - are applied in a legal, proportionate, necessary and exceptional manner.” However, in response to a specific question at the hearing, the State acknowledged that arraigo continues to be applied today at the federal level, in cases of organized crime. 182 148. The arraigo measure that was applied to the alleged victims in the instant case was contained in a different rule from those analyzed by the Court in the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico. According to the rulings of February 25, 2002, of the Duty Criminal Judge in Tlalnepantla and of October 28, 2002, of the Seventh Criminal Judge of First Instance of Tlalnepantla (supra paras. 68 and 75), the arraigo applied against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz was established in Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico. 149. In this regard, the Court recalls that the content of the rule applied in the instant case is as follows: When in the course of a preliminary investigation the Public Prosecutor’s Office deems it necessary to place the accused in preventive detention or prohibit him from leaving a geographical area without the authorization of the judicial authority, taking into account the characteristics of the act charged and the personal circumstances of the accused, it shall refer 178 Cf. Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, paras. 156 and 157. 179 During the public hearing in this case the State indicated that: “Basically, it is already in place, the concept of arraigo has ceased to exist in all the states, the procedural codification does not contemplate that measure. We refer to the states, no state imposes a precautionary measure without a dispute existing between the parties, the defense must be present, the Public Prosecution Service must be present and justify the precautionary measures; there is already a robust catalog of precautionary measures, and it is the judge who determines the arraigo as such. In the states it cannot be applied and it is exceptional for organized crime. So, at this moment there could not be arraigo for Mr. Daniel and for Mr. Reyes.” 180 In the Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico the Court was able to confirm that arraigo is still in force in Article 12 of the Federal Law against Organized Crime. Cf. Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, paras. 40 and 41. 181 During the public hearing in this case, the State indicated: “We can observe that the law has been gradually changing, permeating fundamental rights, such as freedom; in this sense it is also evident that as the years have passed there are rules that allow us [to act] in a specific case, as the national code has already standardized the way in which a precautionary measure should be imposed, which favors the adversarial principle.” 182 Cf. Answer to questions raised by the representatives of the State during the public hearing in the instant case. -39-