83. In connection with Article 7.3 of the American Convention, the Court has established that "no one may be subjected to arrest or imprisonment for reasons and by methods which, although classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because, among other things, they are unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality."124 In reference to the arbitrariness of an arrest, the Commission and the Court have established that "arbitrariness" is not to be equated with "against the law", but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. 125 Therefore, any detention must be carried out not only in accordance with domestic legal provisions, but it is also necessary that “domestic law, the applicable procedure, and the corresponding general explicit or tacit principles are, in themselves, compatible with the Convention.”126 84. Specifically regarding the term "reasonable suspicion," which is expressly provided for in Article 5 of the European Convention on the right to personal liberty, the European Court has pointed out that the words 'reasonable suspicion' "mean the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence."127 In this context of arrest based on "reasonable suspicion," the European Court added that "the prosecutor's failure to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts," in order to verify whether there was a violation of the right to personal liberty" renders it responsible (compromete su responsabilidad).128 85. That Court also pointed out that there is a clear risk of arbitrariness in the granting of such broad discretion to the police officer and found that there are indeed different impacts on certain groups affected by the exercise of that discretion. 129 In the same vein, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance has said that racial and ethnic profiling in law enforcement contravenes international standards because of its discriminatory nature.130 86. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that if the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government.131 Likewise, the Commission recalls the jurisprudence of the Court regarding the burden of proof when omission by the State is alleged with respect to compliance with certain guarantees contemplated in Article 7 of the Convention: the burden of proof lies with the State because it is making an allegation of a positive nature (susceptible of proof).132 87. As for Article 7.4 of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has considered that “the information on the ‘reasons and grounds’ for the detention must be provided ‘when this occurs’ and because the right contained this article entails two obligations: (a) oral or written information on the reasons for the detention, and (b) notification, in writing, of the I/A Court HR. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, par. 47; and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 66. 125 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 92; IACHR. Report 58/12. Case 12.606. Merits. Landaeta Mejías Brothers. Venezuela. par. 218. 126 I/A Court HR. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, par. 133. 127 ECHR. Case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of October 13, 2014, para. 88; case of Erdagöz v. Turkey, Judgment of October 22, 1997, para. 51; and Case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of August 30, 1990, para. 32. 128 ECHR. Case of Stepuleac v. Moldova, Judgment of February 6, 2008, para. 73. 129 ECHR. Case of Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 2010. para. 85. 124 130 and Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia related intolerance, Mutuma Ruteere, Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, A/HRC/29/46, 20 April 2015, para. 63. 131 United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Opinion No. 58/2016 concerning Paulo Jenaro Díez Gargari (Mexico). A/HRC/WGAD/2016/58, 30 January 2017, para. 19. 132 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 73.