300. As mentioned above, and in relation to the concept of arraigo as a pre-procedural measure that restricts liberty for investigative purposes, the Court understands that this is incompatible with the American Convention, since the principles that define its inherent characteristics are not compatible with the rights to personal liberty, to be heard and to the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the Court considers that the State must repeal, in its legal system, all regulations, including constitutional regulations, related to arraigo as a pre-procedural measure that restricts liberty for investigative purposes. 301. With regard to the concept of mandatory pretrial detention, this Court orders the State, as it has done in other cases, 279 to adapt its legal system, including its constitutional provisions, so that it is compatible with the American Convention. For such purposes, the State must take into consideration the provisions of paragraphs 154-163 and 184 of this judgment, which establish the requirements that such measures must satisfy in order to be compatible with said treaty. 302. Furthermore, it is not only the elimination or adaptation of norms in domestic laws that guarantee the rights contained in the American Convention, in accordance with the obligations established in Article 2 of said instrument. It also requires the development of State practices conducive to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein, since the existence of a rule does not in itself guarantee its effective application. In this sense, it is necessary that the application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and expressions of the State’s public order, be adjusted to the same ends pursued by Article 2 of the Convention. 303. Accordingly, the Court recalls that the domestic authorities, when applying the concepts of arraigo or pretrial detention, must exercise an adequate control of conventionality so that they do not affect the rights contained in the American Convention of the persons investigated or prosecuted for a crime, in line with the pro persona principle. In this regard, it reiterates that when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are subject to it; this obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose, whether they are of a constitutional or a legal nature. Therefore, within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural regulations, the judges and organs linked to the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a control of conventionality between domestic norms and the American Convention. In this task, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation made of it by the Inter-American Court, the final interpreter of the Convention. C.2. Training program for officials of the Deputy Prosecutor’s Office of Tlalnepantla 304. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to provide “officials of the Deputy Prosecutor’s Office of Tlalnepantla with appropriate training on the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the investigation of all crimes, including those related to organized crime, and to implement a simple and easily accessible system for reporting such acts.” The representatives did not refer to this measure of reparation. 305. The State referred to the training courses that it is currently implementing. It described in detail the following programs: a) Course on “Absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the investigation of all crimes, including those related to organized Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 206; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, para. 85; and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 215. 279 Cf. Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para.144; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 98, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 217. -76-