CAT/C/75 page 78 prosecutor. It reads: “FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. The functions of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office are: to monitor and ensure compliance with the law in the courts within its jurisdiction, to be associated with amparo proceedings, to represent society incriminal proceedings, as provided for in the Constitution, to represent the nation, as a legal entity, for the defence of its patrimonial rights and to act as the Government’s legal counsel. These functions are all quite separate and admit of no confusion.” 61 The title and text of the decision by the Seventh Circuit Criminal Court, page 613, opinion VII P.J./27, volume V, June 1996, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, read: “ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT BY A COMPETENT LEGAL AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN AND IN ARTICLE 124 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE OF VERACRUZ. The petitioner’s arrest without a warrant by the competent judicial authority is contrary to article 16 of the Constitution, if it is not one of the exceptional cases referred to therein and in article 124 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. when: (a) It is not a case of detention in flagrante delicto; (b) The grounds for applying for an arrest warrant are not shown to be genuine; and (c) It has not been demonstrated that it is a pressing case.” SEVENTH CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT. Amparo review No. 280/96. Odilón Llanos Tlahuel. 02.10.96. Unanimous vote. Judge: Vicente Salazar Vera. Clerk: Lucio Marín Rodríguez. Amparo review No. 504/96. Ana Bertha Aparicio Argüelles. 05.12.96. Unanimous vote. Judge: Vicente Salazar Vera. Clerk: Leticia López Vives. Amparo review No. 612/96 José Demetrio Carreón Ceballos and Mario Espinoza Hernández. 05.12.96. Unanimous vote. Judge: Gilberto González Bozziere. Clerk: Jorge Manuel Pérez López. Amparo review No. 594/96. Mayolo Durán Ibáñez. 11.12.96. Unanimous vote. Judge: José Pérez Troncoso. Clerk: Marco Antonio Ovando Santos. Amparo review No. 781/96. Arturo Cortés Jiménez and Miguel Ángel Cervantes Guerrero. 16.04.97. Unanimous vote. Judge: Vicente Salazar Vera. Clerk: Leticia López Vives. The decision on page 882, volume XI, May 2000, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Journal, upheld by Third Circuit Criminal Court No. 2, reads: “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