129. This Court has indicated that detentions for discriminatory motives are manifestly unreasonable and, therefore, arbitrary. 165 Since the deprivation of liberty was discriminatory, it is not necessary to examine its purpose, necessity and proportionality to determine that it was arbitrary. 130. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín. B.4 Notification of the reasons for the detention 131. Article 7(4) of the American Convention refers to two guarantees for the person who is being detained: (i) oral or written notice of the reasons for the detention, and (ii) written notification of the charges.166 Information on the “grounds and reasons” for the detention must be provided “when this occurs,” and this constitutes a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detentions at the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, guarantees the person’s right of defense.167 The Court has also indicated that the agent who carries out the detention must provide information in a simple, non-technical manner on the essential facts and the legal grounds for the detention, and that Article 7(4) of the Convention is not complied with if only the legal grounds are mentioned.168 The State has not alleged that this obligation was met. The Court considers proved that, when she was being made to get into the official vehicle, Ms. Rojas Marín asked why she was being detained and the state agent did not answer telling her the reasons for the detention. 132. Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated Article 7(4) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín. B.5 Conclusion 133. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court concludes that the initial detention of Ms. Rojas Marín was unlawful because it was carried out without abiding by the causes and procedures established in domestic law, including the failure to record the detention. In addition, the detention was arbitrary because it was carried out on discriminatory grounds. The Court has also concluded that Ms. Rojas Marín was not advised of the reasons for her detention. 134. Consequently, due to actions of its agents acting in this capacity, the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect these rights without discrimination established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín. 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. See also, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. A/HRC/22/44 of December 24, 2012, para. 38. 165 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 106, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 246. 166 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 82, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 96. 167 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 71, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 246. 168 35