the Convention and the issuance of norms and the development of practices that lead to the effective observance of such guarantees. 160 216. With respect to the institution of arraigo as a pre-trial measure that restricts liberty in order to investigate, the Court finds that it is incompatible with the Convention since the hypotheses that underlie its inherent characteristics are not compatible with the rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence. Thus, the Court considers that the State must leave without effect, in its legal order, the norms on arraigo as a pre-trial measure that restricts liberty in order to investigate. 217. With respect to pre-trial detention, the Court, as it has done in other cases, 161 orders that the State adapt its legal order so that it is compatible with the Convention. To that effect, the State shall take into consideration what has been indicated in paragraphs 96 to 114 of the judgment, which sets out the requisites that measures of this nature must comply with so that they conform with the Convention. 218. On the other hand, the derogation or adaptation of domestic law would not necessarily ensure the rights contained in the Convention under the obligation contained in Article 2. There also has to be a development of State practices conducive to the effective observation of the rights and liberties established in the Convention. The mere existence of a norm does not ensure that its application is adequate. The application of the norms or their interpretation, both in jurisdictional practice and in the manifestation of State public order, must be adjusted to the same end that Article 2 pursues. 219. Therefore, domestic authorities, in applying arraigo or pre-trial detention, must exercise an adequate control of conventionality so that they do not negatively affect the conventional rights of persons being investigated or being tried for an offense. It bears repeating that when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all of its organs, including its judges, are subjected to it, which obligates them to ensure that the effect of the Convention is not diminished by the application of norms contrary to the treaty’s object and purpose,. Therefore, within their respective competences and the relevant procedural rules, the judges and bodies involved in the administration of justice at all levels have the obligation to exercise ex officio a control of conventionality between the domestic norms and the Convention and, in so doing, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also its interpretation by the Court, which is the final interpreter of the Convention. C. Measures of satisfaction 162 C.1 Publication of the judgment 220. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to publish the complete official summary of this judgment in the Official Gazette of the Diario Semanario Judicial (Weekly Legal Diary) of the Federation and in its Gazette, as they are the main organs of dissemination of legal information in Mexico. It also asked that the State be ordered to publish, once, the official summary of the Court’s judgment in a newspaper of wide national circulation, in a legible and adequate font. Finally, they requested that the full judgment be available for one year in an official Website of the Government of Mexico. The Commission did not specifically refer to this measure. Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C. No. 68, para. 137; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 112 and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 85. 160 161 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. 162 The Commission recommended that the State, in general terms, “fully repair Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and the heirs of Gustavo Robles López, with measures of compensation and satisfaction that include indemnification for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused.” 50