31 law. Consequently, any requirement established by the national laws that is not complied with when depriving a person of his liberty, will render this deprivation unlawful and contrary to the American Convention. 132 Accordingly, the Court must verify whether Mr. Neptune’s detention was carried out in accordance with the laws of Haiti. 97. Article 7(3) of the Convention establishes that “no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.” On other occasions, the Court has established that: No one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other matters, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or disproportionate.133 98. In brief, it is not sufficient that any reason for the deprivation or restriction of the right to liberty is embodied in the law, but this law and its application must be compatible with the Convention. In other words, to ensure that this measure is not arbitrary, it must respect the following requirements:134 (i) that the purpose of the measures that deprive or restrict liberty is legitimate (it is worth noting that the Court has recognized that ensuring that the accused does not impede the development of the proceedings or evade the action of justice are legitimate purposes); 135 (ii) that the measures adopted are appropriate to achieve the intended objective; (iii) that they are necessary, in the sense that they are absolutely essential to attain the desired objective, and that there is no measure that is less onerous in relation to the affected right, among all those that are similarly appropriate to achieve the proposed objective (for this reason, the Court has indicated that the right to personal liberty presupposes that any limitation must be exceptional),136 and (iv) that the measures are strictly proportionate,137 so that the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of the right to liberty is not exaggerated or disproportionate compared with the advantages obtained by the use of this restriction and the achievement of the intended objective. Any restriction of liberty that does not include sufficient grounds that allow an assessment to be made of whether it is adapted to these conditions will be arbitrary and, consequently, will violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.138 99. Over and above the allegations of the representative concerning the specific form of the possible unlawfulness of the detention, in the preceding chapter, the Court determined that the criminal proceedings opened against Mr. Neptune were inadequately instituted, because the organs of the administration of ordinary justice were not competent to 132 Cf. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 36, para. 57. 133 Cf. 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, supra note 36, para. 90, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 105. See also, Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 39, para. 90. 134 Cf. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 36, para. 93. 135 Cf. Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 39, para. 90, and Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 111. 136 Cf. Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 113, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú, supra note 133, para. 106. 137 Cf. The "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 138 Cf. García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú, supra note 133, para. 128.