ii. Compatibility of the concept of preventive detention in Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution and in the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico with the American Convention 164. The Court notes that in the instant case, preventive detention was applied in accordance with the provisions of the Mexican Constitution and the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico. In this sense, the formal order of imprisonment issued on April 16, 2002, by the Fifth Criminal Judge that ordered the pretrial detention of Daniel García Rodríguez, as well as the ruling of November 30, 2002, of the same court which ordered the pretrial detention of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, were based on Article 19 of the Constitution in force in 2002 and on the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, which provided for the possibility of provisional release of the accused person on bail, except in cases of “serious crimes” (Article 319). Other subsequent decisions that reviewed these precautionary custodial measures were also based on the revised version of Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution, which provides for the so-called mandatory pretrial detention (for example the decision of November 24, 2011, of the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance, supra para. 81). Therefore, this Court must analyze the compatibility of the concept of preventive detention contained in Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution - both in the wording it had when the alleged victims were subject to the precautionary measure, and in the amended wording of 2008 - with the American Convention. In addition, it is pertinent to analyze the concept of preventive detention in the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico. 165. It has been mentioned that the Mexican Constitution in force at the time of the facts of this case established in Article 19 that “[n]o detention before a judicial authority may exceed a period of seventy-two hours from the time the accused is placed at its disposal, without being justified by a formal arrest warrant in which the following shall be stated: the crime with which the accused is charged; the place, time and circumstances of execution, as well as the information provided by the preliminary investigation, which must be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti and the probable responsibility of the accused.” 166. Similarly, the wording of Article 19 of the Constitution after the reform of 2008 added a second paragraph after the one mentioned above, which states that the “Public Prosecutor’s Office may only request the judge to order preventive prison when other precautionary measures are not sufficient to guarantee the presence of the accused at trial, the development of the investigation, the protection of the victim, witnesses or the community, as well as when the accused is being prosecuted or has been previously sentenced for the commission of an intentional crime. The judge will also order preventive detention, ex officio, in the following cases: organized crime; deceitful homicide; rape; kidnap; trafficking of persons; crimes committed using firearms, explosives or other violent instruments; and serious crimes against national security, the free development of the personality and public health.” 167. For its part, Article 319 of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Mexico, in force at the time of the facts, established that: “From the moment the accused is placed at the disposal of the jurisdictional body, he shall have the right to be provisionally released on bail immediately upon request, if the following requirements are met […] IV. That the offense in question is not one of the crimes defined as serious under criminal law.” In turn, Article 9 of the Criminal Code for the state of Mexico, of March 20, 2000, established that: “For all legal purposes, the offenses classified as serious crimes are: (…) organized crime, established in Article 178; (…) homicide, contained in Article 241; kidnapping, provided for in Article 259; (…) and those provided for in the special laws when the maximum penalty exceeds ten years of imprisonment.” para. 251, Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 71, and Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 113. -44-