respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.262 211. The European Court of Human Rights has established that while any detention must be carried out in keeping with the procedures established in the domestic law, it is also necessary for the domestic law, the applicable procedures, and the corresponding express or tacit general principles to be themselves compatible with the Convention.263 212. The Human Rights Committee has specifically indicated that one should not equate the concept of “arbitrariness” with that of “against the law,” but rather it should be interpreted more broadly so as to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability as well as the principle of “due process of law.” This means that the pre-trial detention following a lawful detention must be not only lawful but also reasonable in all circumstances.264 213. In summary, it is not sufficient for every cause of deprivation or restriction of the right to liberty be enshrined in the law; it is also necessary that said law and its application respect that requirements outlined below, for the purposes of such a measure not to be arbitrary: (i) that the aim of the measures that deprive or restrict liberty be compatible with the Convention. Along those lines, the Inter-American Court has recognized as legitimate aims ensuring that the accused will not impede the development of the proceeding or elude the action of the justice system265; (ii) that the means adopted be suitable for pursuing the aim sought; (iii) that they be necessary, in the sense of being absolutely essential for attaining the aim sought, and that there not be an less restrictive measure with respect to the right affected among all those that are equally suitable for attaining the proposed objective. For this reason the Court has indicated that the right to personal liberty presupposes that any limitation to it must be exceptional266; and (iv) that the means be strictly proportional267 such that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to liberty not be exaggerated or disproportionate vis-à-vis to advantages obtained by that restriction and the attainment of the aim sought. Any restriction of liberty that does not contain sufficient motivation that would make it possible to evaluate whether it is consistent with the conditions indicated will be arbitrary and, therefore, will violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.268 214. Based on the foregoing, the Commission will now analyze whether the pre-trial detention orders issued against Ms. Andrade Salmón in the Gader and Street Lamps matters, and their maintenance, were done in keeping with the law and whether or not they were arbitrary. 215. The Commission observes, as per the facts proven, that Ms. Andrade Salmón’s detention was ordered in the Gader proceeding by the Third Criminal Examining Judge of La Paz on August 3, 2000, based 262 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 57; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 98; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 83. 263 See ECHR, Case of Kemmache v. France, Judgment of 24 November 1994, para. 37. 264 Human Rights Committee, Case of Albert Womah Mukong v. Cameroun, (458/1991), July 21, 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991, para. 9.8. 265 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111. 266 I/A Court H.R. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 197, and 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. 106. 267 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 268 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 93.