been commissioned to perform the function of preventing crime in the radius of their jurisdiction. 74 The Supreme Court considered that it was in the performance of these functions that Mr. Tumbeiro was intercepted due to his suspicious attitude, which was corroborated when narcotics were found on his person.75 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Rights to personal liberty, privacy 76 , judicial guarantees, and judicial protection (Articles 777, 8(1)78, 11, and 2579 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument) 47. Regarding the right to not be deprived of liberty illegally, established at Article 7(2) of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has indicated that it “recognizes the main guarantee of the right to physical liberty: the legal exception, according to which the right to personal liberty can only be affected by a law.” 80 The legal exception that is required to affect the right to personal liberty as per Article 7(2) of the Convention is that it must necessarily be accompanied by the principle that only legally defined conduct be punished, which requires states to establish, as concretely as possible, and “beforehand,” the “causes” and “conditions” of the deprivation of physical liberty. Accordingly, any requirement established in domestic law that does not meet with compliance on depriving a person of his or her liberty will result in that deprivation being illegal and at odds with the American Convention.81 48. The IACHR emphasizes that incorrect procedures by the police forces is one of the main threats to individual liberty and security.82 For this reason states must adopt measures aimed at ensuring that the police agents perform their functions in a manner that guarantees human rights, and in particular that arrests are carried out in keeping with the domestic legislation. The Commission recalls that this does not mean limiting police activity legitimately aimed at protecting citizen security as an expression of the common good in a democratic society.83 49. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) has indicated that in relation to the deprivation of liberty, it is particularly important to heed the general principle of juridical 74 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re/ extraordinary appeal, T135. CCCV of October 3, 2002, Annex to petitioners’ brief of observations of October 16, 2002. 75 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re/extraordinary appeal, T135. CCCV of October 3, 2002, Annex to petitioners’ brief of observations of October 16, 2002. 76 Article 11 of the American Convention indicates, at the relevant parts: “1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized; 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 77 Article 7 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment…; 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.…” 78 Article 8 of the American Convention states, at the relevant part: “1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.…” 79 Article 25 of the American Convention indicates in part: “1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 80 I/A Court HR. 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. 56. See also: IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. December 31, 2009, paras. 144-146. 81 I/A Court HR. 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. 55. See also: IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights. December 31, 2009, paras. 144-146. 82 IACHR, Application before the I/A Court HR, Walter David Bulacio, Argentina, January 24, 2001, para. 61. 83 IACHR, Application before the I/A Court HR, Walter David Bulacio, Argentina, January 24, 2001, para. 62. 10