arbitrariness referred to in Article 7(3) of the Convention has its own legal content, the analysis of which is only necessary in the case of detentions that are considered lawful, 625 the Court observes that, in this case, in addition to the reasons why Mr. Quijano’s detention has been declared unlawful, the circumstances of his deprivation of liberty reveal the absence of reasonable or predictable motives that would justify it. It has not been argued, and even less proved, that there was a specific and objective reason why it was suspected that Mr. Quijano had possibly taken part in the events. According to Mr. Quijano, he was classified as suspicious because “the sergeant who transferred him did not like the fact that he was not wearing a tie, although he was a lawyer” or because of an article he had written in his journal about a judgment in which the State had been convicted of human rights violations. 626 409. Similarly, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino were deprived of their liberty because “it was presumed that they had participated in the taking of the Palace of Justice” (supra para. 138). However, the logbook of the Charry Solano Battalion, 627 where they were subsequently transferred, does not record their arrival (supra para. 139). According to the statements of Ms. Santodomingo Albericci, they were classified at “special” or suspects, when they exited the Palace of Justice, and they were separated from “all those who were well-dressed, […] who must work there.” 628 The Court notes that the decision as to who were considered “suspicious” rested on the personal and subjective assessment of the military officers, without any specific and objective elements to justify this assessment. 629 410. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano was not duly registered (supra para. 247), it was not executed in accordance with the established norms, and it was not motivated by objective and specific reasons that would have justified it; also, at the time of the events, it was denied by the State 630 (supra paras. 263 to 268). Consequently, the Court finds that the detention of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano was unlawful and arbitrary, in violation of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. Based on this conclusion, in this case the Court does not Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 116. 625 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 93 and 96, and Case of J v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 127. 626 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Quijano of January 8, 1986, before the 41st Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 24127), and Affidavit made by Orlando Quijano on November 7, 2013 (evidence file, folios 35893 to 35894). 627 Cf. Judgment of the 51st Criminal Circuit Court of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folio 21092). 628 Testimony provided by Yolanda Santodomingo before the Prosecution Service on August 1, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1015 and 1016), and Cf. Testimony of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 629 The Court stresses that this conclusion is also supported by the statements of Orlando Arrechea who indicated that they accused him of being a guerrilla because he was from Cauca. Cf. Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of July 18, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 15216). 630 In this regard, the Third Court underlined that “there was no explanation […] why, in addition to not including individuals who exited the Palace and were considered suspicious on the different official lists, their presence as detainees in the military garrisons was also concealed.” Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 24059). The Court also stressed the testimony of Orlando Arrechea, who indicated that he “never appeared on the list of those taken to the Casa del Florero [���]; they were looking for [him] and [he] never appeared on [those] lists […]. They told [his] family members that [he] was not retained […], they always denied this; [they told them] that he was probably inside the Palace.” Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of July 18, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 15219). 142