169. The State is also responsible for violating the rights to personal liberty established in Article 7(1), 7(3) and 7(5) of the Convention, to the presumption of innocence set forth in Article 8(2) and not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself contemplated in Article 8(2)(g), in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in Article 1(1), as well as the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law contained in Article 2, for having applied the institution of pre-trial detention to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López (supra para. 165). 170. The current texts of Article 133 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 12 of the Federal Law against Organized Crime continue to present various issues that were underscored in relation to the norms in force when the events occurred in the present case (supra para. 156), since persons subjected to arraigo continue to not being heard before a judicial authority before the order that restricts their personal liberty and their freedom to circulate and some of the objectives of these institutions are still not compatible with the legitimate purposes of a restriction to personal liberty under the Convention since the success of the investigation and the protection of persons and legal goods are not legitimate purposes under the Convention (supra para. 103). Therefore, the Court holds that the measures that restrict liberty must conform to the guidelines and standards previously stated so that they do not negatively affect the rights to personal liberty or to the presumption of innocence (supra paras. 96 to 114). 171. In general terms, the Court is of the opinion that any institution of a pre-procedural nature that seeks to restrict the liberty of a person in order to carry out an investigation of offenses that the person allegedly committed is intrinsically opposed to the terms of the Convention and manifestly infringes his right to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence. 172. With regard to the current text of Article 161 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure concerning pre-trial detention, which was held to contravene the Convention, it has not been amended in relation to that which was in force and which was applied at the time of the events of this case. 173. Finally, the Court, for the reasons expressed, has no doubt that these institutions contravene the Convention. It notes that the State affirmed that it now had an adversarial criminal procedure. The two institutions analyzed in this chapter are not in accord with the Convention precisely because they infringe some of the principles of that system, such as the principle of adversarial proceedings, equality of arms in the proceedings, the presence of a judge and the publicity. VIII.2. THE RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY 134 AND TO PRIVACY 135 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS 136 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 174. The Commission claimed that the victims were held incommunicado on January 12, 2006 for seven and a half hours (between 11:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.). It added that their only human contact was with a medical doctor to whom they had to pay a fee to be examined. It indicated that they were then taken to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Orizaba, where they were held incommunicado until January 14, when they gave their first statements. The Commission also claimed that the victims had to remain the night of January 16 on the floor of the UEITA offices. It also alleged that they were not able to communicate with family members in order to inform them of the detention. The Commission, therefore, concluded that such a situation affected the victims’ personal integrity, in 134 Article 5 of the Convention. 135 Article 11(2) of the Convention. 136 Article 1(1) of the Convention. 40