regulations, which require the competent authority to keep a public record of every arrest made, including the identity of the person detained, place, time, circumstances, and officers who made the arrest. Such provisions are, moreover, consistent with this Court’s case law.215 152. As to the arrest of minors216, the Court finds that, in this case, the State acknowledged the arrest of Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui and, referring to the provisions of the 1998 Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents (LOPNA), did not dispute the allegations of the representatives regarding the lack of separation between Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui and the other detainees, nor did it prove that the police immediately informed the Public Prosecutor about his arrest, as required by said law.217 153. Considering the context of the events at the time218, and that no legitimate reasons for the arrest were provided, the Court concludes that the arrest of Luis and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui was not carried out in conformity with Article 44 of the Constitution and LOPNA, all of which contravenes the Convention and the Court’s case law in respect of the conventional provisions applicable in this case 219. 154. Therefore, the arrest of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui is unlawful and violates Article 7(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Furthermore, by failing to comply with the special measures of protection for minors required by law and by the Convention, the State violated Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui. 155. As to the alleged arbitrariness of the detention, the Court notes that the factual and evidentiary documentation furnished is insufficient to rule on the conduct of the Venezuelan authorities in relation to Article 7(3) of the American Convention and its case law in this regard.220 215 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, para. 189 and Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 132. Also see Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 99. 216 Article 19 of the American Convention states: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” 217 Article 549 of LOPNA states: “Adolescents must always be separated from adults when in preventive custody or serving a prison sentence. The offices of the investigative police must have areas exclusively for adolescents arrested in flagranti or on the orders of a Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in order to be brought before a judge, and they must be transferred to specialized facilities as soon as possible.” Article 692 of the LOPNA states: “The Investigative Police may summon or apprehend an adolescent presumed to be responsible for the matter under investigation but, in no case, may it order solitary confinement. In the event of an arrest, this shall be immediately reported to the prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office”. 218 Cf. 2001 Annual Report of the Ombudsman’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Evidence file, volume 24, pages 7825-7827); Annual Report 2002 of the Ombudsman’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Evidence file, volume 24, page 7828-7831), and expert report by Liderly José Montero Barrueta (Evidence file, volume 24, pages 5323 and 5324). 219 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 55; Case Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 201; Case Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, para. 82 and Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, paras. 128, 135 and 136. See also Legal Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 56, 59, 60, 86 and 93. 220 Cf. Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 59; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 146; Case Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, paras. 77 and 78, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 96. 39