4 it was impossible to justify arrests based on the mere subjective appreciation of police officers and that a certain way of dressing or signs of nervousness were not sufficient to justify arrest and search. On March 15, 1999, Section I of the National Court of Criminal Cassation reversed the sentence and acquitted the alleged victim of the crime, on the grounds of unlawful police procedure. The Prosecutor General filed an extraordinary federal appeal against this decision, expressly invoking the precedent established in Fernández Prieto, which, he argued, should apply in the Tumbeiro case. 22. They add that on October 3, 2002, the Argentine Supreme Court overturned the acquittal decision of the Court of Criminal Cassation, holding that the police had acted lawfully and that the circumstances had pointed to suspicious conditions warranting the coercive measure. 23. The petitioners assert that both arrests are illustrative of common police practice. They maintain that in the best cases police officers invoke vague reasons for making arrests when there is no real emergency that would justify dispensing with an arrest warrant. They indicate that terms such as “strong evidence” (indicios vehementes) or “duly justified circumstances” (circunstancias debidamente fundadas), used in a provision of Article 284 of the Argentine Code of Criminal Procedure and in Law 23.950, express the grounds for derogation in a loose, generic fashion, leaving the police free to determine which cases ultimately warrant arrest. 24. In view of the above, the petitioners contend that the Argentine State violated the rights established in American Convention Articles 7, 8, 11, and 25, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of both Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. B. Position of the State 1. Re. Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto 25. The State denies that the arrest and subsequent search of Mr. Fernández Prieto took place without reasons that objectively established its necessity, which was confirmed by the discovery of marijuana bricks in the car. It contends that the coercive measure was taken in accordance with the State’s duty to combat crime, that there were no procedural irregularities, and that witnesses were found immediately for the search of the vehicle. Because drugs and a weapon were discovered, they were taken to the police station. The report was signed by Mr. Fernández Prieto, the two witnesses, and the arresting officers. The State also denies violation of the rights to judicial protection, due process of law, legal representation, a fair judgment, and appellate review of a lower court decision. 26. The State asserts that the existence of objective indications of crime justifies the police action, without implying any diminution of the alleged victim’s right to personal freedom. It contends that, as part of its crime prevention activities, noting suspicious behavior such as, in this case, driving through a sparsely populated area at night, constituted more than reasonable grounds for asking the three occupants of the car to show proof of identity. It also indicates that the occupants of the car were arrested after the search, i.e., only once suspicion had been confirmed. It further argues that Mr. Fernández Prieto’s confession, in which he indicates that he was carrying drugs from Buenos Aires to Mar del Plata, validates the presumption against him and the action that provided the basis for the proceedings. 27. It adds that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officers have a duty to arrest individuals caught in flagrante delicto or against whom there is strong evidence or a semi-plena probatio of guilt. The State indicates that the courts have held that the police were motivated to perform the search by prior suspicious conditions in circumstances where it would have been impossible to obtain a warrant first, and that this procedure was carried out without violating any individual guarantees. It adds that the different courts cited both Argentine and United States case law, which allow arrest where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. 28. The State maintains that the courts involved in the case accepted the legality of the police procedure after having duly considered the issues surrounding the existence or non-existence of suspicious conditions validating the arrest of Mr. Fernández Prieto.