34 the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 110. With regard to the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment, as set forth in Article 7(3) of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has written that “no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or by methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible regarding for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, among other matters, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.” 88 In order to comply with the requirements necessary to restrict the right to personal liberty, there must be sufficient evidence to lead to a reasonable supposition of guilt of the person submitted to a proceeding and the arrest must be strictly necessary to ensure that the accused party will not impede the effective course of the investigations or evade justice. When ordering measures that restrict freedom, the State must justify it and prove that in that specific case, the requirements established in the Convention have been satisfied. 89 The Court has also held that protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of public authority is a fundamental objective of international human rights protection. 90 111. As for the content and scope of the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment, in the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, the Court took the following standards into consideration: 91 The European Court of Human Rights has established that, although any arrest must be made in keeping with a procedure prescribed by domestic law, this domestic law must also be in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein. The Human Rights Committee has stated that: "[A]rbitrariness" is not to be equated with "against the law", but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law. […T]his means that remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the circumstances. 112. The Inter-American Commission considers that any law that imposes a restriction of the rights recognized in the American Convention must, inter alia, be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct accordingly. He must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. In the case of a law that gives the authorities some degree of discretion, the scope of that discretion must be made clear in the law itself. 92 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 105; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 57; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 98; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paragraph 146. 89 I/A Court H.R., Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paragraph 90; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, paragraph 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paragraph 198; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 111. 90 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 92; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraph 239. 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraphs 91 and 92. 92 88. ECHR, Case of Silver and Others v. The United Kingdom, Judgment on the merits, March 25, 1983, paragraph