considered necessary “to prevent an offense or to obtain useful information in the investigation of an offense,” while taking them to a police station means that the person has been provided with “the necessary facilities to find and show” the identify document; and depends on “the seriousness of the act investigated or the sphere of the police operation.” The State indicated that providing the necessary facilities to find and show the identity document meant that “[t]he Police must provide the person concerned with facilities to find and show the document, and these include telephone calls, the use of electronic means or going to the place where the documents are, if possible.” In addition, article 205 establishes that the search of the clothing is only possible “if there are well-founded grounds to consider that the person concerned may be linked to the perpetration of an offense.” In this case, the presumed victim was asked for her identification, her clothes were searched and then she was taken to the police station; therefore, in order to determine the lawfulness of the detention the Court must analyze whether the different actions of the State authorities were in keeping with the provisions of article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 115. First, the police may ask someone for their identification documents when they “consider this necessary to prevent an offense or to obtain useful information in the investigation of an offense.” Ms. Rojas Marín was walking home alone when she was approached by state agents. It has not been proved that it was necessary to ask for her identification document in order to prevent an offense or to obtain useful information in the investigation of an offense. Also, once it was determined that the presumed victim was not carrying her identity document, she was not provided with the necessary facilities to find it and show it. 154 Both facts are contrary to domestic law. 116. Second, the search of a person’s clothing is admissible “if there are well-founded grounds to consider that the person concerned may be linked to the perpetration of an offense.” According to the police report, in this case, the search was conducted because the presumed victim did not have her identity document, “had alcohol on [her] breath and […] presumably was in an advanced state of inebriation.”155 In this regard, expert witness Luis Alberto Naldos Blanco, offered by the State, indicated that: It is evident that the mere fact of being inebriated – without the intervention of acts against persons, public order or public or private property – does not justify a presumption of the perpetration of an offense and, especially, a police arrest. […] In the case of the detention of Azul Rojas Marín there is no objective element that would clearly establish the existence of well-founded grounds for conducting a personal search, or of compliance with the established legal procedure to conduct this. Consequently, it can be affirmed that the personal search of Azul Rojas Marín was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 205.156 117. The Court considers that the personal search of Ms. Rojas Marín was not conducted in accordance with domestic law, because it has not been proved that there were well-founded grounds linking her to the perpetration of an offense. 118. Third, regarding the fact that she was taken to the police station, the law establishes that the person concerned may be taken to the nearest police station exclusively for identification purposes, “[i]f the person concerned is unable to show the identity document, [and] based on the seriousness of the act investigated or the sphere of the police operation.” It has already been determined that Ms. Rojas Marín was not provided with the necessary facilities to find and show her identity document (supra para. 115), so that it has not been proved that it 154 Cf. Statement of witness Víctor Álvarez at the public hearing on August 27, 2019. 155 Cf. Police report of February 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2752). 156 Affidavit of Luis Alberto Naldos Blanco of August 9, 2019 (evidence file, folio 3473). 32