3 conclusively proven that the police received a call with the complaint, and that the “police ordinances,” according to which police officers were empowered to detain people who were altering the peace, had been repealed in 1998 by the Código de Convivencia Urbana [Urban Coexistence Code], because they were unconstitutional. In addition, they added that of the total number of detentions in 1996, most resulted from the application of police ordinances for preventive purposes and not the commission of crimes. Therefore, the petitioners allege that the Argentinian State had violated Article 7 of the American Convention. 11. The petitioners also alleged that the presumed victim was detained because of his race. They held that, according to the supposed anonymous call, the person who apparently was causing the disturbance was wearing a black campera (jacket) and was carrying a weapon, and that this notwithstanding the police decided to detain three dark-skinned foreign nationals without motive. 12. The petitioners declared that when the presumed victim and the two brothers arrived at Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of Argentina, the presumed victim was taken to a place where there was a table and a bench, while the other two were led to a cell in another section of the building. They stated that the authorities justified separating them because they had determined that the presumed victim was under the influence of an addictive (toxicomanígena) substance or alcohol. They also stated that the cell where the presumed victim was deprived of his liberty was of very restricted dimensions. 13. They indicated that the presumed victim had been harshly beaten by police agents until he lost consciousness and was critically injured. They stated, however, that the police authorities’ version alleges that the presumed victim became aggressive when they took his personal belongings, that he removed his clothes and footwear until he was naked, and that the police officers therefore had to handcuff him. The petitioners said that the authorities stated that the presumed victim had intentionally thrown himself head-first to the ground because seven officers of the Federal Police of Argentina had been “impotent” to stop him. They indicated that the seven agents present were: Corporal Marcelino Lezcano, Deputy Inspector Pedro Aguilar, Assistant Officer on Duty Blas Bogado, Sergeant on Duty Corporal Omar Ojeda, Corporal Zulma Orellana, Sergeant Humberto Echegaray, and Corporal Alfredo González. 14. They stated that several witnesses saw when the presumed victim left Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of Argentina on a stretcher carried by a nurse and Mr. Luis Alberto Cordero, and that he was naked, having convulsions, and with a hematoma on his head. The presumed victim was introduced into an ambulance of the Emergency Medical Care Service (SAME), where he died at 9:00 a.m. as he was being transported to Hospital Ramos Mejía. 15. The petitioners alleged that the Argentinian State should be held responsible for the infringement of Article 5 of the American Convention, due to the severe injuries caused to the presumed victim by the police officers while he was in their custody. In this regard, the petitioners argued that one of the autopsies performed demonstrated that the hematomas on the body of the presumed victim could not have been self-inflicted, that persons detained in Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of Argentina had stated that they had heard the presumed victim crying out, and that people who witnessed the detention of the presumed victim affirmed that the presumed victim never demonstrated an aggressive attitude. Finally, they maintain that the Argentinian State should also be held internationally responsible for violating Article 4 of the American Convention, given the insufficiency of all the measures carried out