31. On May 26, 1996 the defense asked that its client be acquitted and that the proceeding be declared null. 32 The defense argued that the stop and search were conducted arbitrarily, violating constitutional guarantees.33 It explained that mere suspicion is not grounds for authorizing the actions carried out by the police.34 32. On July 19, 1996, the federal judge issued a judgment against Mr. Fernández and sentenced him to five years in prison as the perpetrator criminally liable for the crime of transporting narcotics.35 The judgment took into account: (i) the statements by officers Carranza and Norberto, and by Mr. Fernández and the other occupants of the vehicle; and (ii) that the Provincial Police of Buenos Aires (Technical Records Investigations Office) identified the packages obtained as “Cannabis Sativa.”36 In addition, it was indicated that the place where the packages attributed to Mr. Fernández were found does not change the quality of the confession in his initial statement to the authorities.37 33. Defense counsel for Mr. Fernández filed an appellate brief against the conviction. 38 The validity of the evidence obtained was called into question insofar as the search of the car in which Mr. Fernández was traveling was carried out without a judicial warrant. 39 It was argued once again that mere suspicion on the part of the police agents does not suffice to arrest a person and proceed to search his vehicle.40 Defense counsel noted that the record does not include indicators to support the concept of “suspiciousness” (“estado de sospecha”) nor its glosses.41 34. On November 23, 1996, the Federal Court of Appeals dismissed the motion and affirmed the conviction. 42 The Court indicated that the search was legal due to the “prior suspiciousness” (“estado de sospecha previa”) that led the police officers to stop the vehicle in which Mr. Fernández was traveling.43 It held that ruling favorably on the arguments of the defense would impede the crime prevention work of police agents.44 35. On December 12, 1996, defense counsel for Mr. Fernández filed a federal extraordinary appeal against the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals.45 It was alleged that there was no prior suspiciousness for the police officers to stop and search Mr. Fernández and the arrest report does not indicate the components of the purported suspicious attitude of the citizens. 46 He added that the search was based on “spurious or ideological criteria that did not correspond to the rule of law.”47 36. On February 14, 1997, the Federal Court of Appeals of Mar de Plata rejected the argument presented.48 The Court indicated as follows: … having analyzed the grounds for being able to proceed set forth by the appellant, no issue of constitutional seriousness was noted that would allow for a favorable ruling, nor that the ruling on appeal does not result in a reasoned derivation of current law and entails a violation of constitutional guarantees and substantive laws….49 Defense brief of Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). Defense brief of Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 34 Defense brief of Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 35 Judgment convicting Fernández Prieto, July 19, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 36 Judgment convicting Fernández Prieto, July 19, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 37 Judgment convicting Fernández Prieto, July 19, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 38 Appellate brief against the judgment of first instance of Fernández Prieto (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 39 Appellate brief against the judgment of first instance of Fernández Prieto (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 40 Appellate brief against the judgment of first instance of Fernández Prieto (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 41 Appellate brief against the judgment of first instance of Fernández Prieto (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 42 Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals, November 23, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 43 Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals, November 23, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 44 Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals, November 23, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 45 Federal Extraordinary Appeal of December 12, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 46 Federal Extraordinary Appeal of December 12, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 47 Federal Extraordinary Appeal of December 12, 1996 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 48 Order of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mar de Plata of February 14, 1997 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 49 Order of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mar de Plata of February 14, 1997 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 32 33 7