20 unlawfulness that the Court has made pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Convention. The arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention has it own juridical content, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs (supra paras. 90). 97. Consequently, the Court declares that the State did not violate Article 7(3) of the Convention in relation to the arrest of Mr. Lapo. b) The remand in custody of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo 98. The representatives added that “the rationale” that led the judge to issue the court order to investigate the alleged crime (auto de cabeza de proceso), which required the remand in custody of the two victims, was “invisible to the members of the judiciary, the lawyers, and the victims themselves. There is no evidence […] of the line of reasoning by which […] the perpetration of a crime or simply the existence of a crime could be attributed, except for the mere existence of a police report.” The State and the Commission did not submit specific arguments on this point. 99. From the evidence submitted, the Court finds that, on November 17, 1997, two days after the victims’ arrest, the judge in charge of the proceedings against them received information from the Anti-narcotics Police51 about the seizure in Guayaquil on November 14, 1997, of 44 thermal insulated boxes belonging to the company “Mariscos Oreana Maror” that contained fish; however, 448 PVC tubes were found within the structure of all the boxes, containing a substance that was later discovered to be heroine and cocaine hydrochloride. 100. Subsequently, on December 8, 1997, 23 days after the victims’ arrest, the judge issued a “court order to investigate the alleged crime” in which she stated: It is observed that the structures of expandable polythene known as thermal insulated boxes or ice chests have a flawless finish[,] thus there is no incision that would allow it to be supposed that the drug packages had been inserted when the thermal boxes were finished[,] because the work shows that the packages or tubes that contained the drugs were placed when the ice chests were being manufactured […] To date the investigators have determined that the shell company MAROR purchased the ice chests or thermal boxes […] from the manufacturer, AISLANTES PLUMAVIT DEL ECUADOR C. Ltda., owned and managed by JUAN CARLOS CHAPARRO [Á]lvarez, presently in custody, who has supplied the two sizes of ice chest that were seized […] As the above constitutes a crime that can be investigated and punished de oficio, I issue this court order to investigate the crime and institute a preliminary investigation against: […] JUAN CARLOS CHAPARRO [Á]LVAREZ, FREDDY HERN[Á] LAPO [Í]ÑIGUEZ […] Since the requirements of art. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met[,] I issue an order for the remand in custody of: […] JUAN CARLOS CHAPARRO [Á]LVAREZ, FREDDY HERN[Á] LAPO [Í]ÑIGUEZ […].52 101. The Court has established that, in order to restrict the right to personal liberty using measures such as remand in custody, there must be sufficient evidence to allow reasonable supposition that the person committed to trial has taken part in the criminal offense under investigation.53 102. Likewise, the European Court has indicated that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of the 51 Cf. official communication No. 3370-CP2-JPA-G-97 of November 16, 1997, issued by the Guayas Provincial Anti-narcotics Chief (judicial case file, volume 1, folios 1306 to 1308). 52 Cf. the court order to investigate the crime dated December 8, 1997, issued by the Guayas Twelfth Criminal Judge (judicial case file, volume 20, folios 3391 to 3393). 53 Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 17, para. 90.