203. Regarding the arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention, the Court has established that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental human rights of the individual because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unpredictable or lacking in proportionality. 175 In this regard, the arbitrariness mentioned in Article 7(3) of the Convention has its own legal content, which requires analysis only in cases of detentions considered unlawful. However, this means that the domestic law, the applicable procedures and the corresponding general principles, expressed or implied therein, must also be compatible with the Convention.176 Thus, the principle of “arbitrariness” must not be equated with “contrary to the law,” but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice and unpredictability. 204. The Inter-American Court has indicated that, without prejudice to the legality of a detention, in each case an analysis must be made of the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention, on the understanding that the law and its application must respect the requirements listed below to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is not arbitrary:177 i) that the purpose of the measures that deprive or restrict liberty is compatible with the Convention; ii) that the measures adopted are appropriate to achieve the desired purpose sought; iii) that they are necessary, in the sense that they are absolutely essential to achieve the purpose sought and that, among all possible measures, there is no less burdensome measure in relation to the right involved, that would be as suitable to achieve the proposed objective. Hence, the Court has indicated that the right to personal liberty means that any limitation of this right must be exceptional, 178 and iv) that the measures are strictly proportionate, 179 so that the sacrifice inherent to the restriction of the right to liberty is not exaggerated or excessive compared to the advantages obtained from this restriction and the achievement of the purpose sought. 180 Any restriction of liberty that is not based on a justification that meets the above criteria will be arbitrary and will thus violate Article 7(3) of the Convention.181 17 205. Based on the above, the Court will now examine: (i) the detention orders in the ordinary criminal and military criminal jurisdictions; (ii) the responses to the requests for unconditional release in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, and (iii) the duration of the preventive detention. B.1.1 Regarding the detention orders i. Regarding the detention order in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction 206. Firstly, in the instant case, on September 28, 1994, the Judge of Mixed First instance issued a detention order against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and opened an investigation for the crime against public health due to illicit drug trafficking, preparation, storage, transport for large-scale sales of basic cocaine paste, possession of a small amount of cocaine hydrochloride, and holding money in foreign currency derived from drug trafficking, causing injury to the State of Peru. In its 175 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Surinam. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 355. 176 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 92 and 96, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 355. 177 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 93, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 178 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 129, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 179 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, para. 129, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 180 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 93, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 181 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 128, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 356. 46