42 177. It has been proven in the present case, that following the pursuit and collision of the truck in which six Haitian nationals and one Dominican national lost their lives and several more Haitians were seriously injured, the survivors were taken by State agents to Montecristi and, afterwards, to a military prison in Dajabón, where agents demanded money in order to return them to Haiti or, otherwise, they would have to work in the fields planting bananas and rice. Also, their testimony is consistent in asserting that they collected money amongst themselves in order to pay the agents the bribe and were then returned to Haiti. . 178. First, the IACHR recalls that, in general terms, with regard to the right to personal liberty 188 the reigning principle is that deprivation of liberty is an exceptional measure. Moreover, in the case of detention for migration issues, the standard regarding the exceptional nature of deprivation of liberty 189 measures is even higher due to the fact that migration violations should not be of a criminal nature. In that sense, the Commission considers that the States must establish migration laws and policies based 190 on a presumption of innocence and not on a presumption of detention. Thus, detention is permissible only when, after an individual analysis and a decision is made based on the law, this is considered a necessary measure to comply with a legitimate interest of the State, such as to ensure that a person is 191 present during the process of determining their migration status and possible deportation. 179. On the other hand, the IACHR recalls that the Inter-American Court has stated that “any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessary entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof, because the failure to respect the guarantees of the person deprived of liberty leads to the 192 lack of protection of that person’s right to liberty.” 180. As the Court has reiterated in its jurisprudence, in accordance with Article 7(3) “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 193 because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality.” In a similar sense, in referring to the arbitrariness of detention, the Court has established that “[A]rbitrariness is not to be equated with “against the law,” but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of 194 inappropriateness, injustice lack of predictability as well as due process of law.” …continuación to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful […] 188 IACHR. Report No. 86/09. Case 12.553. Merits. Jorge, José and Dante Peirano Basso. Uruguay. August 6, 2009. Para. 93 and ss. 189 United Nations, Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, E/CN.4/2003/85 (November 30, 2002), available in English at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/3ff50c339f54a354c1256cde004bfbd8/$FILE/G0216255.pdf. 190 IACHR, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra, et al. vs. United States, Report No. 51/01 (merits), Case No. 9903, par. 219 (April 4, 2001), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Fondo/EEUU9903.htm; also see IACHR, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, Principle III(2) (2008), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/Basicos.Principios%20y%20Buenas%20Prácticas%20para%20PPL.htm. 191 IACHR, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra, et al. vs. United States, Report No. 51/01 (merits), Case No. 9903, par. 242 and 221 (April 4, 2001), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Fondo/EEUU9903.htm; Also see IACHR, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, Principle III (2008), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/Basicos.Principios%20y%20Buenas%20Prácticas%20para%20PPL.htm. Principle III of the InterAmerican Principles on Detention states that “Preventive deprivation of liberty, is a precautionary measure not a punitive one, which shall additionally comply with the principles of legality, the presumption of innocence, need and proportionality, to the extent strictly necessary in a democratic society.” 192 IA Court H.R., Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. vs. Ecuador. Preliminary exceptions, merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 54. 193 IA Cout H.R., Case Gangaram Panday vs. Surinam. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, par. 47; and IA Court H.R., Case López Álvarez vs. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 66. 194 IA Court H.R., Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. vs. Ecuador. Preliminary exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 92.