37. On February 28, 1997, defense counsel for Mr. Fernández filed a complaint appeal (recurso de queja) against the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mar de Plata.50 It was indicated that the appeal filed with the Court did satisfy the admissibility requirements established in the domestic legal system.51 38. On November 12, 1998, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation rejected the appeal filed and upheld the conviction.52 The Supreme Court considered that the police agents who stopped the car in which Mr. Fernández was traveling were commissioned to cover the radius of a given jurisdiction with the task of preventing any crime.53 It added that in that context they intercepted the automobile on noting that the persons inside had a suspicious attitude suggesting the commission of a crime. 54 It added that said suspicion was corroborated once effects related to narcotics trafficking were found.55 39. The Supreme Court also concluded that the arrest occurred in the context of prudent and reasonable action by the police personnel in the performance of their functions in urgent circumstances.56 The Court added the following: … a different solution would not imply an assurance for the defense at trial, but rather would have been tantamount to ignoring the material truth revealed in the proceeding, as the evidence is not at all tainted, especially if one considers that the defendant, in his initial statement, recognized that when he was stopped he was transporting narcotics.57 D. Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro 1. What happened on January 15, 1998 40. On January 15, 1998, at midday, Mr. Tumbeiro was walking along a street in the city of Buenos Aires.58 According to the petitioner’s narrative, Federal Police agents intercepted him and asked what he was doing in the area.59 It indicated that Mr. Tumbeiro answered that he was looking for electronic material for replacement parts.60 The police agents stated that they saw that Mr. Tumbeiro was nervous, especially because the electronic material alluded to was totally foreign to what one might find in the commercial establishments in the zone.61 41. The police agents declared that Mr. Tumbeiro had a newspaper with him in which they found a transparent bag that contained a white substance similar to cocaine hydrochloride. 62 They added that in response, it was asked that witnesses be present for the purpose of arresting Mr. Tumbeiro.63 The petitioner said that the police agents accompanied Mr. Tumbeiro to their official vehicle, and they proceeded to lower his Extraordinary Complaint Appeal of February 28, 1997 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). Extraordinary Complaint Appeal of February 28, 1997 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 52 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 53 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 54 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 55 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 56 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Judgment of November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 57 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Judgment of November 12, 1998 (Annex to the initial petition of July 30, 1999). 58 Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. 59 Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. 60 Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. 61 Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. 63 Motion for Extraordinary Appeal, Case No. 2100, First Chamber, Tumbeiro Carlos Alejandro re:/motion for cassation of March 30, 1999, Annex to the petitioners’ brief of observations of October 6, 2006. 50 51 8