CAT/C/75 page 79 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.” The title and text of the separate opinion of Sixth Circuit Court No. 2, page 663, volume IV, August 1996, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal, read: “ARREST, UNLAWFULNESS OF. WHEN MADE BY THE JUDICIAL POLICE WITHOUT A WARRANT FROM THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OR THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. A systematic analysis of articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution and articles 67, 68, 109, 110 and 113 of the Puebla State Code of Public Defence Procedure shows that the arrest of an individual is lawful in only three cases: in flagrante delicto, when anyone may make the arrest; by order of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in a pressing case involving a serious offence as defined by law and when, in view of the circumstances, it is not possible to apply to the judicial authority for an arrest warrant; and on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the judicial authority when there is sufficient evidence of an offence and the likely guilt of the suspect; in the latter two cases the arrest is clearly made by the judicial police; consequently, when it appears from the case file that an arrest by judicial police officers was made without a warrant from the Public Prosecutor’s Office or a judicial authority, the arrest is obviously contrary to the above-mentioned legal provisions and is a violation of individual guarantees.” 62 Separate opinion, page 726, volume VI, August 1997, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal, Twenty-first Circuit Court No. 2. “FLAGRANTE DELICTO (INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 69 OF THE GUERRERO CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)”. An offence is flagrant when the victim identifies the offender within minutes of its commission and within no more than one day of his arrest and there is conclusive evidence of his guilt, in accordance with article 69 of the Guerrero State Code of Criminal Procedure, since the term “immediately”, which it uses to indicate that flagrante delicto exists where the person is arrested “immediately” after having committed the offence, someone identifies him as being responsible and there is conclusive evidence of his guilt, should be taken to mean that which is close in time and in space, especially as this type of offence is usually not committed openly, i.e. in the presence of persons who promptly come to the victim’s assistance and arrest the offender. 63 As provided for in the decision on page 223, volume XV, January 1995, eighth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, the title and text of which read: “ARREST, WARRANT CONFIRMING. VIOLATIONS COMMITTED ARE NOT IRREPARABLY COMPLETED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A DETENTION ORDER. In accordance with article 16, sixth paragraph, of the Constitution of the United Mexican States, as amended by the decree published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 3 September 1993, the objective is to provide for monitoring by the court of the lawfulness of arrests made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office by requiring it to characterize the act on which the arrest is based as either lawful or unlawful, to confirm the