43 223. In the instant case, the decision by police to arrest Eduardo José Landaeta was based on the sole factor that he was “sought” by the CTPJ for an alleged connection to the crime of murder. The file contains no order or resolution of any kind that would define just how the juvenile was linked to a proceeding, whether possible evidence against him was such that it justified his arrest, or whether his actions could ultimately thwart the process. 224. In addition, the Venezuelan State presented no argument justifying the order to arrest Eduardo José Landaeta in accordance with the aforementioned parameters, despite the fact that the burden of supporting the reasons for which a right enshrined in the Convention is restricted falls exclusively on the State. 225. In this vein, the Commission feels that depriving the victim of liberty, in addition to being illegal, was arbitrary and thus ignored the rights enshrined in Articles 7.1 and 7.3 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 19 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo José Landaeta. 3. The right of the detained and family members to know the reasons for the detention and the charges against the detainee 226. Developing the content of Article 7.4 of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has stated that “the information on the motives and reasons for the arrest must be provided when the arrest occurs, as this constitutes a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary arrests as of the very moment of the 264 deprivation of liberty and, also, guarantees the individual’s right of defense.” 227. In addition, the Court has emphasized that “the information about the motives and reasons for the arrest necessarily supposes, first, providing information on the arrest itself. The detained person must understand that he is being detained. Second, the agent who carries out the arrest must inform him in simple language, free of technical terms, about the essential legal grounds and facts on 265 which the arrest is based.” 228. In cases where the detainee is a minor child, the Court has maintained that “those who represent him or are his legal guardians have the right to be informed of the motives and reasons of the 266 detention when it takes place, as well as regarding the rights of the detained.” It has also stated that the right to establish contact with a relative is particularly important in cases where a minor child is 267 detained, that this notification must be carried out immediately by the authorities conducting the 268 269 detention and that they must take the necessary steps for the notification to effectively take place. 264 I/A Court HR. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C, No. 170. para. 70; I/A Court HR., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99. para. 82. 265 I/A Court HR. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C, No. 170. para. 71. 266 I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 92; I/A Court HR., Maritza Urrutia Case. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C, No. 103. para. 72; I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 128; I/A Court HR., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99. para. 82. 267 I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 93; I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 130. 268 I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 93; I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 130; and I/A Court HR., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A, No. 16. para. 106. 269 I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 93; I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 130. Citing: Council of Europe. Committee on the Prevention of Torture. 2nd General Report on the CPT´s activities covering the period 1 January to December 1991, paras. 3643.