- 89 - established that detention may become arbitrary if, while underway, acts occur that can be attributed to the State that are incompatible with respect for the human rights of the detainee. 342 In the instant case, it is evidence that the methods used by the law enforcement agents who detained, transferred and entered the eleven women victims in this case into the prison were disproportionate and incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights recognized in the Convention, and this constituted an additional factor in the arbitrary nature of their detentions. 244. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the deprivation of the personal liberty of the eleven women in this case was carried out in the context of a collective detention that was unlawful and arbitrary, because: (i) it was not in keeping with the causes established by law, or executed pursuant to the procedures established by law; (ii) it did not include an individualization of their conduct in order to prove a reasonable suspicion that they had taken part in criminal acts or committed any other act that was a cause for deprivation of liberty established by domestic law, and (iii) it was not proved that the detentions were necessary or proportionate to guarantee a purpose permitted by the Convention. 245. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that the detentions of the eleven women victims in this case, in addition to being unlawful, were also arbitrary. Consequently, the State also violated Article 7(1) and 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez. B.2 Notification of the reasons for the detention and the right of defense 246. Regarding the right recognized in Article 7(4) of the American Convention, this Court has indicated that this refers to two guarantees for the individual who is being detained: (i) oral or written information on the reasons for the detention, and (ii) notification of the charges, which must be in writing. The information on the “reasons” for the detention must be provided “at the time of the arrest,” and this is a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detentions at the very moment of the deprivation of liberty and, also, to ensure the individual’s right of defense. In addition, this Court has indicated that the agent who makes the arrest must provide information, in simple, jargon-free language of the fundamental facts and legal grounds on which the detention is based and that the provisions of Article 7(4) of the Convention are not met if only the legal grounds are mentioned. If the persons is not adequately informed of the reasons for the detention, including the facts and their legal grounds, he does not know the charges against which he must defend himself and, consequently, the judicial control is illusory. 343 247. The Court notes that, in this case, the facts concerning the obligation to notify promptly and in writing the charges against the eleven women victims in this case are related to the obligation to inform the accused of the charges against him or her, included in Article 8(2)(b). In this regard, this Court has established that this subparagraph determines the need to provide “prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him.” The Court has indicated that this Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 66. 342 Cf. Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 109, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 124. See also, Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 154. 343