363. Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in its report on “The Rights of Non-citizens,” underlined that “the procedure for the expulsion of a group of non-citizens must afford sufficient guarantees demonstrating that the personal circumstances of each of those non-citizens concerned has been genuinely and individually taken into account.” 414 B.2. Legal qualification of the facts of this case B.2.1. Right to personal liberty B.2.1.1. Alleged illegal and arbitrary nature of the deprivations of liberty (Article 7(2) and 7(3)) 364. With regard to Article 7(2) of the Convention, the Court has emphasized that the restriction of physical liberty, “even for a brief period, and even merely for identification purposes,” 415 must be “strictly in keeping with the relevant provisions of the American Convention and domestic laws, provided that the latter are compatible with the Convention.” 416 Consequently, the alleged violation of Article 7(2) must be examined in light of the previously mentioned domestic legal and constitutional provisions (supra paras. 181 to 189), and “any requirement established therein that is not complied with will make the deprivation of liberty illegal and contrary to the American Convention.” 417 As for the arbitrary nature of the detention, Article 7(3) of the Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” Regarding this provision, on other occasions the Court has considered that no one may be subject to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods that – although classified as lawful – may be deemed incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unpredictable, or disproportionate. 418 365. In this regard, article 8(2) of the 1994 Constitution (supra para. 181), in force at the time of the facts, stipulated that: […] b. No one shall be imprisoned or have his liberty restricted without a reasoned written order issued by a competent judicial official, except in cases of flagrante delicto. […] d. Anyone deprived of his liberty shall be brought before the competent judicial authority within forty-eight hours of his detention or released. […] f. It is strictly prohibited to transfer any detainee from a prison to another place without a reasoned written order issued by the competent judicial authority. […] 366. In addition, article 13 of Immigration Law No. 95 of 1939 (supra para. 186), in force at the time of the events, established the specific reasons for which an alien could be “arrested and deported” by order of the Secretary of State for Internal Affairs and Police or of another official designated by him. Nevertheless, it indicated that “[n]o alien shall be deported without having been informed of the specific charges that justified his 414 18 415 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The Rights of Non-citizens,” 2006, p. Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 126. 416 Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 76, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 126. 417 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 57, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 126. 418 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname, para. 47, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 127. 118