pattern of "repressive actions against the Communist Party of Brazil (PCB)", by which dozens of activists and at least 12 journalists were arrested and tortured for their activism or suspicion of activism in the PCB, which led to “the physical elimination of almost all” of the central committee of the PCB. (supra párr. 67 and 68) 147. The incompatibility of these actions with the international human rights obligations set forth in the American Declaration are evident. 148. First, under Articles I and XXVI of the American Declaration, the protection of individuals against unlawful or arbitrary interference with their freedom by the State requires that “any deprivation of liberty be carried out in accordance with pre-established law, that a detainee be informed of the reasons for the detention and promptly notified of any charges against them, that any person deprived of liberty is entitled to juridical recourse, to obtain, without delay, a determination of the legality of the detention, and that the person be tried within a reasonable time or released pending the continuation of proceedings”.284 These obligations also include the right not to be subjected to detention or imprisonment for causes or methods that - although qualified as legal - may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because they are, among other things, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.285 For a detention not to be arbitrary, the purpose of the measures that deprive or restrict liberty must be compatible with international human rights law and be suitable to fulfill the aim pursued.286 149. In the instant case, it is not only clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the detention of Vladimir Herzog. The measure aimed to punish the journalist’s alleged activism and political views. In other words, it was based on the exercise of his rights to freedom of thought and expression and freedom of association, which is not a legitimate purpose, in virtue of democratic principles, justifying the deprivation of liberty of a person, and results in an arbitrary detention, thus violating Article XXV of the American Declaration. 150. Secondly, the right of persons deprived of their liberty to humane treatment in the custody of the State is a universally accepted norm in international law. The American Declaration contains a number of provisions in this regard. The Commission has interpreted that Article I of the Declaration (Right to life, liberty and personal security) contains a prohibition of the use of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against individuals under any circumstances, similar to that of Article 5 of the American Convention.287 Additionally, Articles XXV and XXVI of the Declaration concern the right to humane treatment in the context of the rights to protection against arbitrary detention and due process. 151. Both the Court,288 and the Commission have consistently stated that an international legal regime has been formed prohibiting all forms of torture, a prohibition that nowadays belongs to the domain of international jus cogens.289 The Court has also understood that there is a constitutive act of torture when the mistreatment is: a) intentional; b) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and c) is committed with any purpose or objective,290 including the investigation of crimes. 152. It was determined in the domestic realm that torture was used repeatedly against Vladimir Herzog during his detention in the DOI/CODI/SP. Although all of the methods of abuse that were used are IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 120. 285 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Serie C No. 170. 286 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Serie C No. 170. 287 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc.5 rev.1, October 22, 2002, para. 184. 288 I/A Court H.R. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Serie C No. 103, para. 92; I/A Court H.R. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Serie C No. 160, para. 271; and, Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Serie C No.164, para. 76. 289 IACHR. Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.64. December 31, 201. Para. 335. 290 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Serie C No.164. Para. 79. 284 36