indicated that, by referring to the Constitution and the laws established “pursuant thereto,” the analysis of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails examining compliance with the requirements established as specifically as possible and “beforehand” in those instruments in relation to the “reasons” for and the “conditions” of the deprivation of physical liberty. If both the formal and the substantive aspect of domestic law is not observed when depriving a person of his liberty, this deprivation of liberty will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention,103 in light of Article 7(2).104 86. Regarding the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods that – although classified as lawful – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, inter alia, they are unreasonable, unpredictable or disproportionate.105 The Court has considered that domestic law, the applicable procedure, and the corresponding general explicit or tacit principles must, in themselves, be compatible with the Convention. Thus, the concept of “arbitrariness” should not be equated with “contrary to the law”; rather, it should be interpreted more broadly in order to include elements of irregularity, injustice and unpredictability. 106 87. The Court has considered that, to ensure that a precautionary measure that restricts liberty is not arbitrary, it is necessary that: (i) substantive assumptions are presented concerning the existence of an unlawful act and the connection of the person prosecuted to this act; (ii) the measure restricting liberty complies with the four elements of the “proportionality test”; namely, that the purpose of the measure must be legitimate (compatible with the American Convention),107 appropriate to comply with the objective sought, necessary and strictly proportionate, 108 and (iii) the decision that imposes it contains sufficient reasons to allow an assessment of whether it meets the said conditions.109 88. Regarding the first element of the proportionality test – that is, the purpose of the measure that restricts liberty – the Court has indicated that a measure of this nature should only be imposed when it is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose, namely: that the accused will not impede the conduct of the proceedings or evade the action of justice. 110 It has also stressed that a risk to the proceedings should not be presumed, but must be verified in each case based on the real and objective circumstances of the specific case.111 The grounds for these requirements are to be found in Articles 7(3), 7(5) and 8(2) of the Convention. Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 61. 103 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No.288, para. 116, and Case of the Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 230. 104 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 62. 105 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 92, and Case of Carranza Alarcón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 62. 106 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 89, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 391, para. 92. 107 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 197, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 92. 108 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 128, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 92. 109 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 99. 110 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 357, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina, supra, para. 99. 111 24