CAT/C/75 page 67 have been met and the offence warrants deprivation of liberty; or it shall order the release of the accused if the offence does not attract a penalty of deprivation of liberty or attracts an alternative penalty. 313. Emphasizing this obligation to review decisions by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to order imprisonment or detention as established by the constitutional and secondary references under consideration, the Federal judiciary has maintained in many rulings that, when a case is referred to it, the court must not only determine whether detention was effected in flagrante delicto or in one of the pressing circumstances laid down by law, but also specify who the suspect(s) is/are, what crime(s) they are accused of, what made for flagrante delicto or the pressing circumstances, as appropriate, and on what evidence all this is based. This provides further support for the principle of legal certainty in the interests of better human rights protection, since it is this decision that will restrict the suspect’s personal freedom until his legal situation is resolved. 314. Articles 193 and 193 bis of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure also categorically state that any breach will render the person ordering unlawful imprisonment or detention liable to criminal prosecution and that the person so detained must be immediately released. This is borne out by the decisions annexed hereto.61 315. Whilst, in order to qualify as a case of flagrante delicto as referred to in article 193, paragraph III, of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, detention must have taken place within 48 hours, the Federal judiciary has considered that the deadline need not always apply exactly or be that long, since the circumstances of each particular case have to be analysed; this does not mean it takes no account of the tendency to shorten the deadline, as shown by the separate opinion annexed hereto.62 316. In its efforts to strengthen the principle of legal certainty for the benefit of the people, the Federal judiciary has decided that, as another monitoring mechanism, the remedy of appeal is applicable against a decision ordering detention in the case of the exceptions provided for in article 16 of the Constitution.63 317. Withdrawing the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to order detention in cases of flagrante delicto and pressing cases would require a constitutional amendment, which is not within the Federal judiciary’s power. 318. As regards the deadline in cases of “quasi-flagrancy” as referred to in the report, the Federal judiciary has shown, as already pointed out, that the requisite time element in such cases cannot be regarded as being restricted to 48 hours, perhaps not even to the 24 hours being proposed, but will depend on the specific characteristics of each particular case. 319. Replacing the pressing cases provided for in current legislation by a procedure making it easier for the Public Prosecutor’s Office to obtain arrest warrants at any time, requiring it to report any detention immediately to the judicial authorities and place suspects at their disposal within 24 hours, and including a system for notifying the public of detentions throughout the country is another matter that involves the amendment of various pieces of legislation, including the Constitution, and is therefore not within the authority of the Federal judiciary.