detention sua sponte was incorporated into the Constitution in 2011. The Federal Law of 1996 contains provisions on pre-trial detention that are not germane to this case. There follow the domestic norms to which reference has been made. A.1. On arraigo a) The legal norms in force at the time of the occurrence of the events in the present case 36. Article 133 bis of the Federal Code of 1999 established that: The judicial authority may, at the petition of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, decree house arraigo or impose a prohibition to leave a determined geographical area without its authorization, for a person against whom a criminal action is being prepared, when there exists the risk of evading the action of justice. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and its aides have the responsibility to monitor that the mandate of the judicial authority is duly complied with. House arraigo or the prohibition to leave a determined geographical area may be extended for the period strictly necessary, but may not exceed thirty calendar days in the case of arraigo and sixty days in the case of the prohibition to leave a determined geographical area. When the person in question requests that the arraigo or the prohibition to leave a determined geographical area no longer be in effect, the judicial authority may decide, after consulting the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the person in question, whether it be maintained. 37. The Federal Law of 1999 established in its Article 12 that: The judge may, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Federation and taking into account the nature of the alleged event and the personal circumstances of the accused, decree arraigo against the accused in the place, form and means of implementation set out in the request, under the surveillance of the authority, which is to be exercised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and its aides and which may be extended for the period strictly necessary for processing the preliminary investigation, but not to exceed ninety days, so that the person in question may participate in clarifying the events imputed to him, which might reduce the period of arraigo. b) The norms amended or adopted after the occurrence of the events in this case 38. Article 16 of the Constitution of Mexico was amended in 2008 and 2019 and currently reads as follows: The judicial authority may, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office and in the case of offenses involving organized crime, decree the arraigo of an accused person, with the modalities of place and time specified by law, which may not exceed forty days, provided that it is necessary for the success of the investigation, the protection of persons or legal goods, or when there is a well-founded risk that the accused will evade the action of justice. This period may be extended when the Public Prosecutor's Office proves that the causes that gave rise to it still exist. In no case may the arraigo exceed a total of eighty days. 39. The current version of Article 133 bis of the Federal Code of 1996 establishes that: “The judicial authority may, at the petition of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, decree house arraigo of the accused in the case of serious offenses when it is necessary for the success of the investigation, the protection of persons or legal goods or when there exists a well-founded risk that the accused might evade the action of justice. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and its aides have the responsibility to monitor that the mandate of the judicial authority is duly complied with.” 40. The current version of Article 12 of the Federal Law of 1999 establishes that: The judge of control may, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, decree arraigo when it involves offenses under this Law, when necessary for the success of the investigation, for the protection of persons, of legal goods or when there is a well-founded risk that the accused will evade the action of justice. 11