“the agents who detained and tortured Azul initiated the detention by insulting her and using language that clearly referred to the perceived sexual orientation.” This constituted a discriminatory application of article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They considered that “there is no evident reason why the agents who detained and tortured Azul were in the area.” They indicated that “the supposed reason for the detention (an identity check) was totally unjustified because, although it is true that Azul was not carrying her identity document at the time of the detention, at least one of the agents knew her and knew who she was.” They also argued that the detention was unlawful because: (i) it was carried out due to calls with complaints by neighbors; (ii) “Azul was not given the possibility of being able to produce her identity document”; (iii) “she was not allowed to contact her family and her detention was not recorded in the logbook as required by article 205 [of the Code of Criminal Procedure],” and (iv) the intervention lasted more than the four hours permitted by law. They argued that the detention was also arbitrary and that Azul was not advised of the reasons for her detention. They also indicated that “no judicial control was exercise while she was detained, which is also indicative of the fact that her detention was arbitrary.” 98. Lastly, they considered that article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was contrary to the Convention. They indicated that: (i) the first paragraph of the article gives “broad discretion and can be used subjectively and indiscriminately by the police”; (ii) the third paragraph contradicts the first paragraph because it permits identity checks “even if there is no well-founded reason to believe that the person concerned is linked to an offense”; (iii) the fourth paragraph “does not authorize the police to accompany the person detained to another place where their identity can be verified,” but merely establishes that the person be taken to a police station’(iv) the article does not establish that “as soon as the person’s identity has been verified, that person shall be released, without having to wait until the four hours have elapsed,” and (v) the article should include an “obligation to inform the Public Prosecution Service, because a police identity check is supposedly only carried out if, and only if, there are objective and well-founded reasons to connect the person detained to the perpetration of an offense.” 99. The State argued that the detention of the presumed victim was in keeping with the provisions of Peruvian law. It stressed that the police agents and the member of the serenazgo service saw a person “lying down in the middle of Industrial Highway”; therefore, one of the agents got out of the patrol car and saw that it was Azul Rojas Marín. She was taken to the police station “considering that she was acting suspiciously and because she was not carrying her identification document and had alcohol on her breath.” It indicated that following the identification and verification process she was released, and that there was no reliable evidence to support the fact that she was at the police station until 6 a.m. The State considered that the detention of Azul Rojas Marín was not arbitrary because “a series of elements were present that, when analyzed as a whole, allowed it to be determined that the detention was necessary, reasonable and proportionate.” It argued that, since the detention of Azul Rojas Marín was justified, her right to privacy was not violated. The State also indicated that article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was in keeping with the Convention; in this regard, it emphasized that the article complied with the criteria of reasonableness, appropriateness, necessity and proportionality. B. Considerations of the Court 100. The Court has maintained that the essential content of Article 7 of the American Convention is protection of a person’s freedom from any arbitrary or unlawful interference by 27