212.Arraigo (investigative or pre-charge detention) is a Mexican institution that was initially recognized in secondary legislation. Its practical effect is that it gives public prosecutors more time to conduct investigations and gather evidence to be submitted to a judge before a person has formally been charged with a criminal offence. The delegation observed that this practice, which in principle is intended to be the least restrictive form of deprivation of liberty, in Mexico has become a practice that keeps legal proceedings stalled in limbo for excessive periods of time and creates obstacles to defence and to the determination of the legal status of the person detained under arraigo (regardless of the term used to describe this situation). 213.The Subcommittee wishes to express its concern over the fact that, despite the decision by the Supreme Court of Mexico in September 2005 declaring the practice of arraigo in the state of Chihuahua unconstitutional, the use of arraigo has been sanctioned under the Constitution for cases involving organized crime. The Subcommittee wishes to remind the State party that the practice of arraigo has previously been called into question by other bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations, such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Committee against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The issue was raised most recently within the Human Rights Council as part of the universal periodic review. It was included among the eight recommendations that the Mexican Government declined to accept at the time but agreed to examine and provide a response in due time. 214.The Subcommittee notes that, under article 12 of the Federal Act to Combat Organized Crime of 1996, a judge, at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, may order the detention under arraigo of a person charged with participating in organized crime. This practice entails placing the suspect under the continual surveillance of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and its aim is to increase the time available to the prosecution to conduct the preliminary investigation on the basis of which the accused person can be held responsible for the offence. The Subcommittee has been informed that, under the reform, the maximum time during which a person can be held under arraigo is 80 days and that such persons are generally held in so-called “safe houses” (casas de seguridad). 215.The Subcommittee notes that the use of arraigo has been restricted to offences of organized crime, but is of the view that the definition of “organized crime” in the Mexican Constitution is vague and not consistent with the definition set out in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This issue was also addressed by the Human Rights Council during the universal periodic review. The Subcommittee believes that the definition in the Constitution, which does not specify all the elements contained in the Convention definition, is open to interpretation and could therefore be used to extend the practice of arraigo to other situations or other persons having nothing to do with organized crime. In addition, the Subcommittee is concerned that, under the eleventh transitional provision of the Constitution, concerning criminal justice and public security, the practice of arraigo is permitted in the case of serious offences. That article provides that, until the new accusatory criminal justice system becomes fully operational — which under the timetable envisaged may take up to eight years — the practice of arraigo is permitted for serious offences. The Subcommittee urges the State party to review the recommendations made in respect of arraigo by the various United Nations bodies mentioned above. In line with the recommendations made to the State party during the universal periodic review and in keeping with the preventive nature of its mandate, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party abolish arraigo, which creates a situation outside judicial control that constitutes a risk of torture and ill-treatment. 216.The delegation noted that the practice of arraigo takes diverse forms at the federal level and in the various states and that there are no uniform criteria for its use. Consequently, people detained under arraigo are held in a variety of situations. For example, at the federal level detention under arraigo occurs in high-security environments (use of uniforms of different colours, depending on the offence of which the detainee is accused, extreme disciplinary regimes, etc.). At the state level, the delegation found that, of the states visited, Oaxaca practised arraigo in a manner least restrictive of liberty, since most people detained under arraigo remained in their own homes for the entire detention period. The Subcommittee has noted that with the pending reform of the criminal justice system, only the federal Government will have authority to detain under arraigo. (b)Observations of the delegation with regard to some arraigo detention facilities visited 217.The delegation visited various pre-charge detention facilities and “safe houses” at the federal and state levels and interviewed many people who were being held under arraigo at the time of the visit. Members of the delegation found that, although this form of detention is intended to be the least restrictive of liberty, it is in fact — since persons detained under this arrangement have not yet been formally investigated — the form of detention that is most restrictive of the liberty of the individual. People under arraigo are at times held completely incommunicado and neither their families nor their lawyers have any information about their whereabouts. Such situations can render the individual defenceless against situations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The delegation interviewed persons detained under arraigo in all the states visited. The most important observations that the Subcommittee would like to bring to the State party’s attention with regard to the facilities visited and the interviews conducted are set out below. State of Nuevo León 218.The delegation visited the detention facility of the State Investigations Agency (Office of the State Attorney-General), also known as “Gonzalito”, in the State of Nuevo León, where members were able to interview people being held under arraigo. One such person, a former federal investigations agent who at the time of the visit had been in detention for 12 days, told the Subcommittee delegation that he had never been informed of the reasons for his arrest, never shown a warrant, never given the assistance of a lawyer and never allowed to make any telephone calls. He also told the delegation that his lawyer had found out about his situation through the media. He informed the delegation that during the first days of his detention, he had slept on the floor and that days later he had been given some pillows. Members noted that the room in which this person was being held at the time he was interviewed was very small and very cold. The individual also informed the members of the delegation that although he had a kidney infection and was in severe pain, he had not received any medical attention. He had told the guards that the room in which he was being held was very cold, but they had paid no attention. In the same facility, the delegation was informed that all cells and rooms had microphones and cameras. Another of the people interviewed told delegation members that he had had to talk to his lawyer in a room with cameras and microphones.