3 14. They add that the only justification given for arresting Mr. Fernández Prieto was suspicious behavior, which had not even been described by the police officers. They indicate that, according to the arrest and seizure report, after stopping and identifying the three suspicious subjects, who produced valid documents proving their identity, the officers called over two witnesses and searched the vehicle, inside which they found six marijuana bricks. They were immediately taken to the police station, where the items were seized and the occupants of the car, arrested. They add that, according to the police report, the accused were held in incommunicado detention. They also indicate that when making a statement during questioning, Mr. Fernández Prieto was not informed of his right to speak freely and confidentially with an appointed lawyer before taking such action. 15. As a result of this incident, criminal proceedings were initiated against Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto, and on July 19, 1996 he was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of 3,000 pesos for transportation of narcotic substances. His defense appealed the decision, arguing as before the unlawful nature of the arrest and, consequently, the subsequent investigations. The Mar del Plata Federal Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision. In response, Mr. Fernández Prieto’s defense filed an extraordinary federal appeal (recurso extraordinario federal), repeating its argument that the issues transcended individual interest and directly affected the interests of the community. The appeal was denied. After hearing the application for reconsideration of dismissal (recurso de queja), the Argentine Supreme Court upheld the arrest and police seizure, leaving Mr. Fernández Prieto’s sentence standing. 16. The petitioners allege that at no point in the proceedings did the police indicate that this was a case of flagrante delicto or that they had the strong evidence of guilt required by national law, nor did they indicate the circumstances that had led them to consider Mr. Fernández Prieto’s behavior suspicious and ultimately arrest him. They maintain that the courts’ validation of these actions prevented any effective review of the either lawfulness or the reasonableness of these coercive measures. The arrest and search without warrant were arbitrary and unlawful, and grave violations of fundamental rights. 17. They also allege that the courts that heard the case failed to give substantial consideration to the arguments of Mr. Fernández Prieto’s defense or respond to the serious grievances reported by the defense in its appeals. The petitioners invoke the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which compels application of the exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained in violation of a constitutional guarantee may not be used against a person protected by that guarantee, and has been validated by the Argentine Supreme Court itself in various cases. 18. On September 4, 2001, the petitioners reported that a new law, Law 25.434 of June 15, 2001, broadened various aspects of police powers, including with respect to body and vehicle searches, in violation of the American Convention. 2. Re. Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro 19. According to the petition, on January 15, 1998, federal police officers stopped Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro around midday on a public road and asked him for proof of identity. As justification for this action, the police officers indicated in the arrest warrant that Mr. Tumbeiro had displayed suspicious behavior by appearing nervous and dubious about the police order and by wearing clothes that did not fit in with local dress. 20. The petitioners indicate that, even though the alleged victim produced personal documents proving his identity, the officers asked him to empty his pockets and show their contents. Next, they made him get into the police vehicle, where they pulled down his pants and underwear. The officers then called over two witnesses, and when they were close enough, the police officer told them that the arrestee had drugs in his possession, picked a newspaper up from the back seat of the patrol car, and showed them that it contained a white substance. 21. On August 26, 1998, Buenos Aires Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 sentenced Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro to one year and six months in prison and a fine of 550 pesos, plus legal fees and costs, after finding him guilty of simple possession of narcotics. The defense appealed in cassation, arguing that