CAT/C/75 page 82 67 As shown by the decision handed down by Third Circuit Criminal Court No. 2, page 822, volume XI, May 2000, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal. “DETENTION, CHARACTERIZATION OF. The obligation of the judge hearing a case to characterize the detention of the accused placed at his disposal by the public prosecutor is based on an amendment to article 16 of the Constitution, in accordance with a decree published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 3 September 1993 which entered into force the next day and reads in part: “An arrest warrant may be issued only by a judicial authority on the basis of an information, a charge or a complaint of a specific act defined by law as an offence punishable by imprisonment and where there is credible evidence of an offence and the likely guilt of the accused person. The authority who executes an arrest warrant shall be strictly responsible for placing the accused at the disposal of the court without delay. Failure to do so shall be punishable under the criminal law. In case of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the accused and place him without delay at the disposal of the nearest authority, who shall just as promptly place him at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Only in pressing cases, when what is involved is a serious offence as defined by law and there is a well-founded risk that the suspect may evade justice and the judicial authority is not available because of time, place or circumstances, the Public Prosecutor’s Office may, on its own initiative, order the arrest of the suspect, provided that it substantiates and explains the reasons for doing so. In pressing cases and cases of flagrante delicto, the judge before whom the detainee is brought shall immediately confirm the arrest or order the accused’s release, subject to the conditions provided for by law.” It may thus be concluded that, when the judge receives the case file, he must determine whether the arrest was in flagrante delicto or in connection with a pressing case provided for by law and, if so, explain to which accused person or persons it relates, what the offence(s) is/are, in what way the detention was in flagrante delicto or pressing and the evidence on which the foregoing is based in order to be able to confirm the arrest, since this is the decision that will restrict the liberty of the suspect until such time as his legal situation has been resolved.” Third Circuit Criminal Court No. 2. 68 As provided for in decision XII, 1º. 3 P, page 525, volume II, November 1995, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal, the title and text of which read: “ARREST OF A PERSON WITHOUT A WARRANT. THE COURT MUST RELEASE HIM SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW IF THE CASE IS NOT ONE OF FLAGRANTE DELICTO OR IS NOT PRESSING”. According to article 16 of the Constitution, a person may be arrested only when there is a warrant for his arrest issued by the competent judicial authority in cases of flagrante delicto or pressing cases. Thus, if the arrest is not made in accordance with an arrest warrant or in a case of flagrante delicto or a pressing case, the judge who receives the case file must, according to the sixth paragraph of the above-mentioned article of the Constitution, determine whether the requirements provided for in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the above-mentioned article have truly been met and, if so, confirm the arrest; and, if not, order the accused’s release, subject to the conditions provided for by law. TENTH CIRCUIT COURT No. 1.”