A/HRC/28/68/Add.3 recognition of arraigo, by detention without a warrant in cases of quasi-flagrante delicto and urgent cases involving serious offences and by the existence in law of “equipollent flagrancy” (flagrancia equiparada), a concept similar to quasi-flagrante delicto that remains in force in some states pending the entry into force of the adversarial system. The Special Rapporteur observed the widespread use of arrest in urgent cases and a lax and improper use of the concept of in flagrante delicto. In 2012, 6,824 federal arrest warrants were issued, but 72,994 arrests were made without a warrant. In 2013, the figures were 5,539 and 42,080 respectively. The Special Rapporteur noted minimal ministerial police or judicial oversight of the legality of arrests and believes that such practices give rise to arbitrary detention and increase the incidence of torture and ill-treatment. 48. The Special Rapporteur observed cases where over 24 hours had elapsed between a person’s arrest and his handover to the Public Prosecution Service, in violation of the constitutional requirement to do so promptly. If one adds to this the 48 hours given to the Public Prosecution Service to present charges and bring the detainee before a judge, which can be extended up to 96 hours in cases of organized crime, the person may spend several days under investigation without appearing before a judge or seeing a lawyer. 4. Arraigo (pre-charge detention) 49. Arraigo involves detaining a person, with a warrant and at the request of the Attorney General’s Office, for 40 days, renewable for a further 40 days. The aim is to investigate the person’s alleged participation in an offence related to organized crime and to decide whether to bring criminal charges. The Special Rapporteur considers that arraigo violates the right to personal liberty, due process and the principle of presumption of innocence and exposes the detainee to possible torture. Accordingly, he strongly urges the Government to abolish it immediately.11 50. The Special Rapporteur did not receive any complaints of torture committed in the Federal Investigation Centre, although most of the arraigo detainees interviewed claimed to have been victims of torture before arriving at the Centre. However, the National Human Rights Commission recorded an increase in complaints of human rights violations in arraigo situations from 45 in 2008 to 148 in 2011. 51. The Government reported that of 534 persons placed in pre-charge detention in 2013, 432 were charged. However, the Special Rapporteur regrets that he received no information on the standard of evidence for requesting an arraigo detention or on the number of those charged who received a final conviction. According to data received, of the more than 8,000 persons subjected to arraigo detention since 2008, only 3.2 per cent have been convicted. 52. The use of arraigo has declined recently. While 812 arraigo measures were requested and 586 granted in 2012, the numbers were 272 and 177 respectively in 2013, and 112 and 48 in the months up to April 2014. Recent Supreme Court decisions have restricted the use of arraigo to federal jurisdiction in cases of organized crime.12 States such as Chiapas, Oaxaca, Coahuila and Yucatán have repealed the measure and others have stopped using it. The Congress is currently considering a constitutional bill that would reduce the arraigo detention period to 20 days, renewable for a further 15 days. 11 12 12 See CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, para. 11, CAT/OP/MEX/1, paras. 212 to 238, A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, para. 88, and E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3, para. 50. Supreme Court of Justice, Action of Unconstitutionality No. 29/2012 and Amparo Reviews Nos. 164/2013 and 38/2014. GE.14-25288