deprived of their liberty by the State agents indicates that this was due to racial profiling related to the fact that they apparently belonged to the group of Haitians or Dominicans of Haitian origin or descent (supra para. 168 and infra paras. 403 and 404), which is evidently unreasonable and therefore arbitrary and thus violated Article 7(3) of the Convention. Consequently, the Court finds that the deprivations of liberty were illegal and arbitrary and that the State violated paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Convention. B.2.1.2. Notice of the reasons for the deprivations of liberty (Article 7(4)) 369. With regard to Article 7(4) of the American Convention, the Court has stated that “the facts must be examined in relation to domestic law and the provisions of the Convention, because the information on the ‘reasons’ for the detention must be provided ‘promptly’ at the time of the detention, and because the right contained in that paragraph entails two obligations: (a) the need for written or oral information on the reasons for the detention, and (b) notice, in writing, of the charges.” 427 370. In the case sub judice, both Immigration Law No. 95 and Immigration Regulations No. 279 require that aliens detained for deportation purposes be informed of the specific reasons why they must be deported. According to the Immigration Regulations, the specific charges against them had to be included in the arrest warrant issued by the Director General of Immigration. However, as indicated above, the established facts do not reveal that the members of the Medina, Fils-Aimé and Jean families, Rafaelito Pérez Charles and Bersson Gelin were ever informed of the reasons for the deprivation of their liberty, either orally or in writing. Moreover, there is no document proving that they were advised in writing about the existence of any kind of charge against them, as required by the domestic laws in force at the time of the facts. This leads to the conclusion that the State failed to observe the guarantee established in Article 7(4) of the Convention. B.2.1.3. Presentation before a competent authority (Article 7(5)) 371. With regard to Article 7(5) of the Convention, which establishes that any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial functions, the Court has underlined that “it is for the judge to guarantee the rights of the detainee, to authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures when strictly necessary, and to ensure, in general, that the detainee is treated in a manner consistent with the presumption of innocence,” as a “guarantee to avoid arbitrary or illegal detention, 428 as well as to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity.” 429 authority, such as the Immigration Inspector, nor were they given the opportunity to respond to the charges supposedly set forth in the arrest warrant, pursuant to this regulation. To the contrary, there is no evidence that the presumed victims were ever informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention, either orally or in writing, or that they were able to contest their detention, in evident violation of the Immigration Law and the Immigration Regulations. The Court also observes that the authorities did not comply with the obligation to record the information on the aliens arrested or detained for the purpose of their deportation. This information was not recorded on the “G-1 form” established in section 10.d) of the Immigration Regulations. Lastly, the transfer of those who were detained to the border with Haiti without a reasoned order contravened the prohibition to transfer detainees from a prison to another place without a reasoned written order from the competent judicial authority established in article 8.2.f) of the 1994 Constitution. 427 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 106, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 149. 428 135. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, para. 129, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 429 Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 118, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 135. 120