the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has made reference to these practices, defining them as “questioning, arrests and searches which are in reality based solely on the physical appearance of a person, that person’s colour or features or membership of a racial or ethnic group, or any profiling which exposes him or her to greater suspicion.”151 97. At its sixth period of sessions, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent considered the issue of racial profiling. The Working Group recognized that racial profiling violates the right to non-discrimination and recalled that international and regional laws make it clear that racial discrimination in the administration of justice is illegal. The Working Group also underscored that racial profiling has been recognized as a specific problem as a result of the systematic and historic targeting of persons of African descent, with severe consequences in creating and perpetuating a profoundly negative stigmatization and stereotyping of persons of African descent as having a propensity to criminality. It likewise affirmed that in most cases where racial profiling has been applied, no significant results have been achieved in terms of enhanced security, and great harm has been done to people of African descent and other vulnerable groups.152 98. Manifestations of the use of racial profiling may also be linked to internal law or practice. Indeed, as the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance indicated, “Government policies may also facilitate discretionary practices that allow law enforcement authorities to target groups or individuals on the basis of their skin colour, dress or facial hair or the languages they speak.”153 99. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has indicated that deprivation of liberty is discriminatory “when it is apparent that persons have been deprived of their liberty specifically on the basis of their own or perceived distinguishing characteristics or because of their real or suspected membership of a distinct (and often minority) group. The Working Group found one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the existence of discriminatory motives to be if "The authorities have made statements to, or conducted themselves toward, the detained person in a manner that indicates a discriminatory attitude."154 Thus, an arrest based on the use of racial profiling would be clearly discriminatory. 100. In this case, the police officers justified the arrest of Mr. Acosta Martínez on his alleged state of drunkenness. In this way, the use of a broad legal provision like the edicts against drunkenness obscured the use of racial profiling as the main reason for the detention, consequently establishing the arbitrariness of the deprivation of liberty. Indeed, this Court has indicated that the arrests made for discriminatory reasons are, therefore, arbitrary.155 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. General recommendation XXXI on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, UN Doc. A/60/18, 2005, obs. 20. 151 Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its sixth session, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/39, March 9, 2007, para. 56 and 58. 152 Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mr. Mutuma Ruteere, supra, para. 16. 153 154 Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/37, July 19, 2017, para. 48. Cf. Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 368; and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 129 155 31