79. In addition, the Tribunal notes that Article 10, subparagraph b) of Law 815, in force as of the date the events took place, authorized the police of the Province of Chubut to “hold” - that is, to restrict the physical liberty - of any individual whose criminal record “[may need] to be known [...] under circumstances that justify this.” Therefore, this provision did not specify the reasons for which the police could "hold" an individual in order to identify him or her or check his or her criminal record. On this point, expert witness Sofía Tiscornia stated that the existence of laws in both the organic police codes and in misdemeanor codes "imprecisely legitimize police authority to detain individuals for purposes of identification only because they were loitering in a place, acting suspiciously, wandering the streets, [not well dressed, looking into places of commerce in a suspicious manner, walking among cars or looking away when the police call them,] all imprecise standards.” She also indicated that in this way, “police discretion [becomes] very broad," and the reasons for which they make detentions are often "minimal and absurd." 80. For the Court, having failed to establish concrete reasons for which a person can be deprived of liberty, Article 10, subparagraph b) of Law 815 allows the police of the Province of Chubut to interfere with the physical liberty of persons in a way that is unpredictable and therefore arbitrary. Thus, the Court finds that this provision was contrary to Articles 7(3) and 2 of the American Convention. 81. Now, given that Article 10, subparagraph b) of Law 815 was applied to Mr. Iván Eladio Torres in the detention of September 26, 2003, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7(1) and 7(3) of the American Convention with regard to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Torres Millacura, as his detention was not carried out based on specific grounds, but rather in an unpredictable manner. 82. In addition, there is no indication in the case file that the detention of Mr. Torres Millacura in September 2003, during which he was taken to “Km. 8,” was carried out in keeping with Law 815 of Province of Chubut. However, given that the Commission alleged that this law has been applied, and given that this was acknowledged by the State, the Tribunal assumes that the detention was not legal and was arbitrary, and that therefore the State violated Article 7(1), 7(2), and 7(3) of the American Convention, with regard Articles 1(1) and 2 of thereof, to the detriment of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. B.2. Categorization of the events experienced by Mr. Torres Millacura at “Km. 8.” 83. The Court notes that in the application, the Commission made a general reference to alleged police abuse suffered by Iván Eladio Torres Millacura during the detentions that took place prior to his enforced disappearance. However, the only specific allegation on this point is with regard to the execution by firing squad of Mr. Torres Millacura at the place known as “Km. 8” (supra para. 63). In this regard, the Court notes that the Commission alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture, but did not categorize what happened at “Km. 8” in accordance with the provisions of that instrument. Indeed, the Commission did not submit arguments of law in that regard. For their part, the representatives expressed in general terms that Iván Eladio Torres Millacura was beaten and tortured during the aforementioned detentions. However, they did not make any specific arguments to the effect that what happened to Mr. Torres Millacura at “Km. 8” was "torture" under the terms of the aforementioned Convention. Taking this into account, the Court will proceed to analyze this point. 84. The American Convention expressly recognizes the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], a legal right whose protection includes the principal goal of the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or 26