indirectly, at creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination. 204 Likewise, when the discriminatory treatment refers to the unequal protection of domestic law or its application, this must be analyzed in light of Article 24 of the American Convention 205 in relation to the categories protected by Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Court recalls that a difference in treatment is discriminatory when it has no objective and reasonable justification, 206 that is, when it does not pursue a legitimate end and there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means used and the purpose pursued. 207 173. In the case of mandatory pretrial detention, the differentiated treatment can be verified in the fact that those accused of committing certain crimes will not have the possibility of having control over or adequately defending themselves from the measure, since there is a constitutional mandate that imposes the preventive measure of deprivation of liberty. On this point, it is important to recall that Article 8(2) of the Convention stipulates that, during the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to various minimum guarantees of due process. For this Court, it is clear that the automatic application of mandatory pretrial detention without considering the specific case and the legitimate purpose for restricting a person’s liberty, as well as his specific situation with respect to others who, when also charged with crimes, are not covered by Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution, necessarily implies a breach of the right to equality before the law, in violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, and to enjoy, with full equality, certain guarantees of due process, in violation of Article 8(2) of said instrument. 174. For the above reasons, this Court finds that Article 319 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico and Article 19 of the Constitution as amended in 2008, which were applied in the instant case (supra para. 164), contained - and continue to contain clauses in the case of Article 19 of the Constitution - that, per se, are contrary to various rights established in the American Convention. These rights are: the right not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily (Article 7(3)), the right to have judicial control over the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)), the right to presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)), and the right to equality and non-discrimination (Article 24). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the State violated these rights, in relation to the obligation of adopt provisions of domestic law established in Article 2 of said treaty, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. c) Regarding the application of arraigo and pretrial detention in the specific case 175. In the previous sections, the Court has determined that both the concept of arraigo contained in Article 154 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico and the concept of pretrial detention contained in Article 319 of said Code and in Article 19 of the Constitution as amended in 2008, were contrary to the American Convention, since they violated the rights not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily (Article 7(3); to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty (Article 7(5)); to be heard (Article 8(1)); and to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)). Moreover, with respect to arraigo, the Court concluded that it also violated the right to be Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 103, Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 270. 204 205 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209; Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 272, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 115. 206 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46, Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 125, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, para. 49. 207 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 200; Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 125, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 49 -46-