- 85 - the Convention.323 Thus, the concept of “arbitrariness” should not be equated with “contrary to the law,” but should be interpreted in a broader sense in order to include elements of wrongness, injustice and unpredictability.324 Furthermore, the Court underscores that the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty is a non-derogable right, which may not be suspended and is applicable even in cases in which the detention is executed for reasons of public safety.325 232. Based on the above, the Court will analyze: (1) the initial detention of the women; (2) the alleged violations regarding the failure to notify the reasons for the detention and the right of defense, jointly, and (3) the preventive detention of the victims. B.1. Unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the initial detentions of the eleven women victims in this case B.1.a Unlawfulness of the detentions 233. The Court observes that Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution, in force at the time of the facts, establishes: No one may suffer interference with their person, family, domicile, papers or possessions unless it is by a written order issued by a competent authority that justifies and provides the grounds for the legality of the procedure. […] In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may detain the suspect bringing him immediately before the nearest authority and the latter, with the same promptness, shall bring him before the Public Prosecution Service. Only in urgent cases, if a serious offense, so classified by the law, is involved and there is a substantiated risk that the suspect may evade the action of justice, provided that it is not possible to go before the judicial authority owing to the time, the place or the circumstances, the Public Prosecution Service may, under its responsibility, order his detention, providing the grounds and indicating the evidence for this procedure […].326 234. According to article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Mexico in force at the time of the events, flagrante delicto exists when “the person is detained as he is committing the act, or when the suspect is pursued substantively, uninterruptedly and immediately after committing it.”327 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, para. 91, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 238. 323 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, para. 92, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 355. 324 Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 120, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 402. 325 Constitution of the United Mexican States in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folio 42772). It should be noted that, in their brief with observations on the helpful evidence presented on September 21, 2018, the representatives clarified that although the Constitution provided by the State was not in force at the time of the events, it contained the text of article 16 of the Constitution that was in force on May 3 and 4, 2006. 326 Initial brief with observations on the merits (evidence file, folio 9992). In addition, according to article 193 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts, it is considered that flagrante delicto exists when: “I. The accused is detained as he commits the offense; II. Immediately after execution of the offense, the accused is pursued 327