the matter to the court, stating the grounds and reasons for its request, so that it may immediately rule on the appropriateness of the arraigo or detention, with supervision of the authority exercised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and its assistants. The accused shall be notified immediately of the arraigo or detention and it shall be extended for the time strictly necessary for the proper conduct of the investigation in question, but shall not exceed thirty days, which may be extended for another thirty days, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The judge shall decide, after hearing the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the affected party, on the continuation or the lifting of the arraigo or detention. 150. Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico presented several of the problems that were highlighted by this Court in relation to Article 12 of the 1996 Federal Law Against Organized Crime, as well as Article 133 bis of the 1999 Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, which were analyzed in the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico. In particular, the arraigo contemplated in Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico: a) consisted of a pre-procedural measure that sought to restrict a person’s liberty in order to investigate crimes allegedly committed by that person and, in that sense, was intrinsically contrary to the provisions of the American Convention and clearly violated the rights to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence; b) it did not allow the person under arraigo to be heard by a judicial authority before the measure that restricted his personal liberty or his freedom of movement was decreed; and c) the objective of the measure restricting liberty was not compatible with the legitimate purposes for the restriction of personal liberty since it was essentially for investigative purposes. 151. For all the above reasons, this Court finds that Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, referring to the concept of arraigo and applied in the instant case (supra para. 148), contained clauses that, per se, are contrary to several rights established in the American Convention, namely: the rights not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty (Article 7(3)); to judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonableness of the term of pretrial detention (Article 7(5)); to be heard (Article 8(1)); and to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)). To that extent, the Court concludes that the State violated these rights in relation to the obligation of adopt domestic provisions of law established in Article 2 of said treaty, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. b) Pretrial detention in Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution and in the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico 152. The representatives and the Commission argued that the mandatory pretrial detention that was applied in the instant case was contrary per se to the American Convention and violated the rights to personal liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention) and to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2) of the Convention). 153. The Court will now analyze these arguments in the following order: a) general aspects of pretrial detention, the right to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence; b) the compatibility of the concept of pretrial detention contained in the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico and in Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution with the American Convention, and c) conclusion. i. General aspects of pretrial detention, the right to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence 154. First of all, it should be recalled that States have the obligation to ensure security and maintain public order within their territory and must therefore employ the necessary means to combat the phenomena of delinquency and organized crime, including measures involving restrictions on, or even deprivation of, personal liberty. Nevertheless, the State does not have -40-