there are significant indications that they are jeopardizing public peace.” The State has not proved any of these elements in the case of the retention of Mr. Quijano. 406. In addition, the only official documents that reveal the reasons for the detention of Mr. Quijano are a note of the 13th Brigade referring him to the Police Station, and indicating that he was retained due to a “suspicious attitude,” and a release order issued by the SIJIN stating that he is released “because he has no pending matters with the civil or criminal authorities or with the police.” 618 The Court underlines that the note of the 13th Brigade indicates that Mr. Quijano “was […] near the Palace of Justice in a suspicious attitude during the M-19 occupation of the building on 06-NOV-85.” 619 However, it has been fully proved that Mr. Quijano was inside the Palace of Justice when the attack by the M-19 began and was evacuated on November 6, 1985 620 (supra paras. 142 and 373). In this regard, the 51st Criminal Court stressed in its first instance decisions on the events of this case that this note “reveals a modus operandi cloaked in deceptiveness, since Messrs. [ARRECHEA] OCORO and QUIJANO were rescued from within the Palace, where they were when it was occupied, so that there is no justification for said note recording that they were “near” the building “in a suspicious attitude,” [which] denotes the absence of a transparent procedure, in keeping with the reality, revealing how the members of the armed forces used unorthodox mechanisms to deal with the events.” 621 The Report of the Truth Commission also concludes that this “reveals the unlawfulness of his detention, after having left the Palace.” 622 407. Furthermore, even though the State argues that Mr. Quijano was detained “for identification purposes,” the Court underscores that, in his statements, Mr. Quijano indicated that when he arrived at the Casa del Florero he presented his identity documents, but the officials took them away and would not believe that they belonged to him even though Supreme Court officials had identified him and said they knew him. 623 Therefore, even in the hypothesis of a detention for identification purposes, the need for this has not been proved in this case. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Quijano’s detention was unlawful. 408. The Court also recalls that Article 7(3) of the American Convention establishes that “[n]o one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment”; hence any restriction of liberty that is not based on a specific reason or motive may be arbitrary and, therefore, violate Article 7(3) of the Convention. 624 Although the Court has pointed out that the 618 Cf. Note No. 06040-COBR13-B2-267 of the Colombian Military Forces (evidence file, folio 20169), and Release order of November 8, 1985 (evidence file, folio 20171). 619 Cf. Note No. 06040-COBR13-B2-267 of the Colombian Military Forces (evidence file, folio 20169). 620 In addition to the above, his name appears on official lists of persons rescued from the Palace of Justice. Report contained in the AZ found in the 13th Brigade during the judicial inspection made in June 2013 (evidence file, folios 35332 and 35373); “List of people rescued from the Palace of Justice on November 6 and 7, 1985,” Annex 3 of the Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30542), and lists of people rescued from the Palace of Justice found during the judicial inspection at the 13th Brigade (evidence file, folio 38122). 621 This decision also indicates that the said note “shows that they were not taken momentarily to the Brigade – as the defendant indicates […] when admitting that several individuals were taken there – but rather they remained there from one day to the next, without any type of contact with the exterior.” Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24466, 24467, 24589 and 24590). See also, Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 20903 and 20904). 622 Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 182). 623 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Quijano of January 8, 1986, before the 41st Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 24126); Testimony of Orlando Quijano of June 2, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1264); Orlando Quijano. Journal “El derecho del Derecho.” January to March 1986. No. 10 (evidence file, folio 15990), and Affidavit made by Orlando Quijano on November 7, 2013 (evidence file, folio 35893). 624 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paras. 128 and 143, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. 141