CAT/C/75 page 81 66 As upheld in the decision on page 359, volume III, January 1996, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal, which reads: “UNCONDITIONAL SUSPENSION. A GUARANTEE OF COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR INJURY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR GRANTING IT, IN THE CASE OF AN ACT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS LIBERTY”. The Amparo Act does not make it a requirement, for granting unconditional suspension of an act depriving a person of his liberty (in this case, a detention order), that payment of compensation for loss or injury should be guaranteed, unless a decision subsequent to that granting conditional suspension so stipulates, since article 124 of the Act in question reads: “Apart from the cases referred to in the preceding article, suspension shall be ordered when the following requirements exist: I. The petitioner requests it; II. The public interest is not threatened and no public order requirements are contravened; ... III. It would be difficult to provide compensation for the loss or injury caused to the petitioner by the act complained of. In granting the suspension, the district judge shall try to determine how matters should stand and shall take the necessary measures to maintain that state of affairs until the termination of the proceedings.” Article 136 of the Act reads: “If the act complained of affects personal liberty, the only effect of the suspension shall be that the petitioner shall remain at the disposal of the district judge in that regard alone, and at the disposal of the authority due to hear the case, when the act derives from criminal proceedings, as regards the continuation of those proceedings. ... If a suspension is granted in the case of warrants for arrest, detention or imprisonment, the district judge shall order such measures as he may deem necessary to secure the petitioner so that he can be handed over to the competent authority if amparo is not granted. When the arrest, detention or imprisonment warrant relates to an offence in respect of which release on bail is by law not applicable, the effect of the suspension will be that the petitioner will continue to be at the disposal of the district judge in any place the judge may designate, only insofar as his personal liberty is concerned, and at the disposal of the authority conducting the criminal proceedings for the purposes of their continuation. ... Where the petitioner is deprived of his liberty on the basis of an order by a criminal court or the Public Prosecutor’s Office or a pre-trial detention order, the judge shall take the necessary measures to guarantee the security of the petitioner, who may be released on bail in accordance with article 20, paragraph I, of the Constitution and the applicable Federal and local laws, provided that the judge or court hearing the case has not ruled on the conditional release of this person, not having been requested to do so.” The foregoing shows that measures to guarantee the petitioner’s security so that he may be handed over to the competent authority if he is denied amparo must not be confused with the requirements for granting an unconditional suspension, which, as stated above, do not include any guarantee of compensation for loss or injury. THIRD CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT No. 2; and in the decision on page 216, part II-1, July to December 1988, eighth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, the title and text of which read: “APPLICATION FOR BAIL. MUST BE ALLOWED WHEN THE PERSON SUBMITTING IT IS DOING SO BECAUSE THE PETITIONER CANNOT. When the application for bail shows that the applicant states that she is instituting amparo proceedings on behalf of her husband because he was moved to another prison, this means that he was physically unable to institute amparo proceedings personally and, in accordance with article 17 of the Amparo Act, that his wife is entitled to do so and that the application must be processed.” SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT No. 3.