was not possible for her to show her identity document. In addition, the police report establishes that the presumed victim was taken to the police station for the respective identification because she was “undocumented, in suspicious circumstances, and in a place frequented by miscreants.”157 The police report makes no mention of the investigation of an offense or that a police operation was being conducted. Consequently, the State has not proved compliance with the legal assumptions for taking the presumed victim to a police station. 119. Fourth, the law requires that: (i) the “procedure, calculated from the moment the police intervene, may not exceed four hours”; (ii) the person concerned must be guaranteed “the right to communicate with a family member or with the person he indicates,” and (iii) “[i]n such cases, the Police shall keep a logbook in which they record the identification procedures conducted, as well as the reasons for the procedures and their duration (supra para. 113). In this regard, the Court notes that the presumed victim was detained for at least five hours which exceeds the permitted time. In addition, there is no dispute that the procedure to identify Ms. Rojas Marín was not recorded. 120. Regarding the possibility for Ms. Rojas Marín to contact a family member or a person of her choice, the Court notes that it is the State that has the burden of proving that Ms. Rojas Marín was advised of this right. In this case, the State has not alleged that it complied with this obligation. Also, Ms. Rojas Marín’s statements do not show that she was advised that she could contact someone. Taking into account that it corresponded to the State to prove that, in this case, it had complied with the legal obligation to notify Ms. Rojas Marín of her right to contact a family member or friend, the Court considers that it failed to comply with this obligation. 121. Based on the foregoing, the Court find that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Rojas Marín did not comply with the requirements established in its own domestic law, so that it constituted a violation of Article 7(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín. 122. In addition, the Court notes that, since there was no reason to take the presumed victim to the police station, it does not find it necessary to analyze the alleged violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention. B.3 Arbitrary nature of the detention 123. Even though the Court has already considered that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Rojas Marín was unlawful, in this case it considers it necessary to examine its allegedly arbitrary nature. 124. The State argued that Ms. Rojas Marín was detained for identification purposes and, according to the police report, she was taken to the police station because she was “undocumented, in suspicious circumstances, and in a place frequented by miscreants.” The Court has already determined that, during the identity check of the presumed victim, the legal requirements were not met as regards the possible relationship of the person concerned to an offense. In addition, at the time of the events, one of the serenazgo agents nicknamed Chimbotano knew the presumed victim.158 Therefore, it has not been proved that the identity Cf. Police report of February 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2752), and Record of personal search dated February 25, (evidence file, folio 9). The record specifically establishes that the police did not find “drugs, firearms, jewelry and similar objects, cash and/or mobile telephone.” 157 Cf. Verbal complaint made by Azul Rojas Marín at the Casa Grande Police Station on February 27, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2793), and Statement made by LQC before the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecution Service of Ascope on March 4, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2759). The serenazgo agent FFR declared that “I met [her] in December 2004, at the home of a friend […], who played volleyball and with whom I have a distant friendship; I 158 33