- 86 - 235. According to the said articles, at the time of the facts, under Mexico’s domestic law, detentions could be lawful if there were based on: (a) a court order; (b) an order of the Public Prosecution Service, in urgent cases when it was not possible to obtain a court order, or (c) in cases of flagrante delicto, in either of its forms. In this case, the Court notes that the detention of the eleven women victims in this case was carried out pursuant to quasi-flagrante delicto.328 236. In this regard, the Court has noted that, in order to evaluate the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty under the American Convention, the State must prove that it was carried out in accordance with the pertinent domestic law, as regards both the reasons and the procedure.329 Specifically, in the case of the presumption of flagrante delicto, this Court has indicated that the State must prove that the detention was carried out in flagrante delicto.330 In the instant case, the State has not proved the existence of elements that, reasonably, allow the flagrante delicto required by domestic law to be supposed; to the contrary, it has acknowledged that the detention of the eleven women victims in this case was carried out in violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention. Furthermore, the statements of the eleven women victims in this case reveal that they were arrested when they were walking down the street, waiting for buses, shopping, going to work, carrying out research or journalism, providing medical care, and even when they had taken shelter in private homes (infra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). In its Recommendation 38/2006, the CNDH observed that nine of the eleven women victims in this case were detained in the context of “raids” without a court order, thus contravening the provisions of domestic law and “without the certainty that they might have participated in the perpetration of a wrongful act.”331 237. The Court finds that the detentions were executed unlawfully, because the situation of flagrante delicto required by domestic law – and on the basis of which they were detained – was not proved. Therefore, the State violated Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the eleven women victims in this case. B.1.b Arbitrariness of the detentions 238. This Court also notes that, in the instant case, in addition to the reasons why the State declared that the detention of the eleven women victims in this case was unlawful, it also acknowledged the arbitrariness of the deprivation of their liberty in the context of the operations carried out in Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco on May 3 and 4, 2006. In this regard, the Court substantively, or III. The accused is indicated as responsible by the victim, an eyewitness, or someone who has taken part with him in the perpetration of the offense, or the object, instrument or product of the offense is found in his possession, or there are traces and evidence that justify presumption of his participation in the offense; provided that it is a serious offense classified as such by law, that less than 48 hours have passed since the moment that the criminal acts were perpetrated, that the preliminary inquiry has started, and that the prosecution of the offense has not been interrupted.” Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (in force in 2006) (evidence file, folio 23325). Initial brief with observations on the merits (evidence file, folio 9992). 328 Cf. Initial brief with observations on the merits (evidence file, folios 11745 and 11756). Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 405. 329 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 65, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 413. 330 Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 28923, 28924, 29139, 29140, 29457, 29781, 29852, 29921, 29922, 29967 and 30079). Also, the CNDH highlighted other irregularities in the detentions and the preliminary inquiry in relation to the eleven women victims in this case (supra para. 120). 331