6 27. With regard to the allegations related to the right to personal liberty, the State stated that the presumed victim and the Gonçalvez Da Luz brothers were detained due to a complaint which reported that a person who was inebriated and armed was causing disturbances. It held that the file contains evidence that tends to demonstrate that the presumed victim was in a state of inebriation and that he was disturbing the peace. Furthermore, it argued that the presumed victim was detained “for infringing the police ordinance in effect regarding inebriation and other intoxications (article 3) and the police ordinance on disorderly conduct (article 1),” and, pursuant to the proceedings, cases, or circumstances expressly established by law (material aspect) and in strict compliance with the procedure objectively defined by same (formal aspect), the detention was not arbitrary, and was in accordance with Article 7 of the American Convention.2 With regard to the alleged violation of the right to equality before the law, the State stated that such a serious allegation cannot be sustained by mere assumptions such as those summarized by the petitioners. 28. In regard to the arguments regarding the presumed victim’s right to humane treatment, the State stated that the presumed victim was separated from the Gonçalvez Da Luz brothers inside the police station because he was under the effects of an addictive substance and because the latter two were under age. It argued that numerous elements of proof made it possible to reach a different conclusion than the one sustained by the petitioners, such as the testimony of Mr. Oscar Almada, a taxi driver who was driving along the street and was called by the police when he passed Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of Argentina to serve as a witness when a personal search was performed, and who was present at the time the presumed victim was supposedly struck by police officers. Furthermore, the State alleged that two of the three autopsies did not sustain the petitioners’ hypothesis. 29. With regard to the allegations concerning the alleged violation of the presumed victim’s right to life, the State held that, in accordance with the autopsy, it could not be concluded that the injuries to the body of the presumed victim were capable of causing the death of the presumed victim. Furthermore, it argued that, with regard to the second autopsy, the medical board emphasized that none of the injuries found were cause of death, and that the physicians who performed the autopsy in Uruguay stated that it was not possible to determine the cause of death. Regarding the argument that the authorities failed to adopt sufficient measures to ensure the safety of the presumed victim, the State held that, based on the statement of Oscar Almada, it does not follow that the police officers had acted negligently with regard to the care of the presumed victim, that according to the autopsies the death was caused by the consumption of a large amount of alcohol and cocaine, and that the police officers could not do more than immediately call for an ambulance to prevent his death, “even though at that moment they were unaware of the Defín Acosta’s state of intoxication.” 2 With regard to the regulations applicable at the time of the events, the State affirmed that the police ordinance on inebriation and other intoxications maintains that persons in a full state of inebriation on the streets, plazas, coffee shops, nightclubs, stores, taverns, and other places that sell beverages or public places will be punished with a fine of between 300 and 1,500 pesos, or 3 to 15 days in detention (article 1); persons in the aforementioned places under the influence of alcohol will receive a fine of between 100 and 600 pesos or 1 to 6 days in detention (article 2); and for inebriation, in the case of the aforementioned places, fine or arrest of persons under the influence of alkaloids or narcotics (article 3). It also indicated that in accordance with the Regulations of Contraventional Procedures (Reglamento de Procedimientos Contravencionales) in force at the time of the events, if the violator was inebriated or intoxicated by alkaloids, the police agent taking charge should find a way to take the person to the police station in order to reduce the visibility of the disturbance caused by the person (article 89), and that disorderly inebriated persons, whatever their situation or condition, should be held in the prisoners’ section, where no criminals are present (article 131).