of this case took place, Law 815 was being applied inconsistently by the police with the effect of restricting the physical liberty of persons. According to the testimony of Sergio Omar Thiers, who was assistant sergeant of the First Precinct, “in the cases in which the subject brought to the station [based on Law 815 was] already known, the person was not signed in and not registered because the person was already identified [...].”56 This was corroborated by Fabián Alcides Tilleria, the police chief at the time, who stated that it was possible for an individual to be transported to the police station for identification purposes without this being entered into the log book if the person was not “held” or “detained,” that is, if the person did not enter the Station or if the person’s entry was “circumstantial.” The Police Chief noted that “a detention is recorded when the person enters the jail cell.” 57 76. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to recall that Article 7 of the American Convention protects against all illegal or arbitrary interference with physical liberty. 58 In that sense, for the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention, a "hold," even with the mere purpose of identifying the person, constitutes a deprivation of the person's physical liberty, and therefore all restrictions of that liberty must strictly adhere to what the American Convention and domestic legislation establish in this regard, so long as the latter is compatible with the Convention. Thus, even if it was carried out for identification purposes, Mr. Torres Millacura’s detention should have been duly registered in the pertinent record, indicating clearly, at a minimum, the reasons for the detention, who carried out the detention, the time of the detention, and the time of release, as well as recording that the investigative judge with jurisdiction had been informed. The Court finds that, upon failing to record the detention of Mr. Torres Millacura, the police failed to comply with one of the requirements established in Law 815 and that therefore, the State violated Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention, with regard to Article 1(1) of that instrument. 77. In addition, Article 7(3) of the American Convention establishes that, “no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” On this provision, the Court has established on other occasions that: no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable, or 59 lacking in proportionality. 78. Together with what was indicated with regard to the principle of legality (supra para. 74), from this it can be derived that any restriction to liberty that is not based on a specific cause or motive can be arbitrary and, therefore, in violation of Article 7(3) of the Convention. 60 56 Cf. Declaration of Assistant Sergeant Sergio Omar Thiers rendered before Examining Judge no. 2 on November 11, 2003 (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7401). 57 Cf. Testimony of the Chief of the First Section of the Police Department Fabián Alcides Tilleria rendered before Examining Judge no. 2 on December 11, 2003 (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7669). 58 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 29, para. 53, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 51, para. 80. 59 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday V. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 29, para. 90, and Case of Usón Ramírez V. Venezuela, supra note 54, para. 146. 60 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paras. 128 and 143; Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 116, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 32, para. 116. 25