He said he only reported these attacks on his physical integrity to the media because he did not trust the police in Argentina.121 69. On September 3, 1998, the head of the National Criminal Investigation Court No. 10 sent the President of the National Chamber of Appeals certified photocopies of the testimony given by Andrés Alberto Fresco, in order to inform the Correctional Court so it would take action at the reports of threats.122 There is no information in the case file to indicate investigations were indeed initiated with respect to the complaints of threats presented by Ángel Acosta Martínez and witness Alberto Fresco. VII MERITS 70. This case involves the alleged illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory deprivation of liberty of José Delfín Acosta Martínez on April 5, 1996, as well as alleged harm to his personal integrity at the hands of police officers in a police station, culminating in his death that same day. The case involves the improper investigation of the facts and the impact of these facts on the right to personal integrity of José Delfín Acosta Martínez's mother, Blanca Rosa Martínez, and his brother, Ángel Acosta Martínez. 71. As described in this judgment (supra paras. 15 to 26), the State fully recognized its responsibility in terms set forth by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. However, the Court concluded it was necessary to proceed to determine and specify the scope of State’s responsibility as regards the illegality and arbitrariness of the deprivation of José Delfín Acosta Martínez’s liberty in order to develop the jurisprudence on the matter and to protect the corresponding human rights for the victims in this case. VII-1 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY,123 EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION124 AND DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS125 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 72. The Commission argued that “at the time of the facts, the edicts on which the victim’s arrest was based were not authorizing arrests based on objective elements, but instead on behaviors or situations that were associated with the commission of crimes on the basis of suspicion. This gave significant discretion and, in the absence of proper safeguards, the detentions tended to be based on prejudices and stereotypes associated with certain groups, as is the case with groups that have historically faced discrimination, including people of African descent.” It also concluded that “the State did not prove that the detention of José Delfín Acosta had been carried out based on objective elements associated with a criminal act, nor did the State demonstrate it had informed him of the reasons for his detention. Even though Mr. Acosta Martínez did not carry weapons, properly identified himself, and, as the record shows, “had no warrants restricting his freedom," he was handcuffed, detained, 121 Cf. Statement made by Ángel Acosta Martínez at the public hearing before this Court. Cf. Communication to the President of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the City of Buenos Aires of September 3, 1998 (evidence file, folio 505). 122 123 Article 7 of the Convention. 124 Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention. 125 Article 2 of the Convention. 24