individuals identified were not committing, nor could be understood to be about to commit, a criminal act or offense, so that there was no reason to verify their identity; they were merely poor people living on the street and it would appear that this was the situation that, in practice, authorized the police to act.”36 33. The Court notes that, as the State has acknowledged, the detentions of Messrs. Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro in 1992 and 1998, respectively, occurred in a general context of arbitrary detentions and searches in Argentina. In this regard, in its final arguments, the State indicated that, “in our country, the police authority to stop and search people without a court order and without evident situations of flagrante delicto merits comprehensive review”37 and this, added to the aforementioned reports, allows the Court to conclude that this context continues up until today. B. Detention and criminal proceedings against Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto B.1. Interception and inspection in 1992 34. The corresponding arrest report indicates that, on May 26, 1992, an inspector and two sergeants of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires were “patrolling the precinct” when, at around 7.00 p.m., they saw, in an almost uninhabited area of Mar del Plata, a green vehicle with “three individuals inside behaving suspiciously,” one of whom was Mr. Fernández Prieto, a salesman of 45 years of age. The police agents intercepted the vehicle, made the passengers get out and, in the presence of two witnesses summoned for this purpose, proceeded to conduct a search. In the trunk of the vehicle was a package wrapped in silver-colored paper with a brown ribbon the aroma and characteristics of which indicated that “it could be […] marihuana,” and a 38-caliber revolver with ten bullets and 30 bullet cases. Inside the vehicle, in the seat occupied by Mr. Fernández Prieto, there were five similar packages, and a 22caliber pistol with 8 bullets, a magazine and two holsters.38 35. According to the arrest report, the police officers proceeded to confiscate these items, and detained Mr. Fernández Prieto and the other passengers and took them to a police station.39 The same day, one of the officers signed a statement in which he asserted that, when they were searching the vehicle, Mr. Fernández Prieto had acknowledged that “they were going to deliver the drug” to “a man called Guillermo or Toti,” who would pay them when they made the delivery.40 On June 16, 1992, another of the officers stated that Mr. Fernández Prieto told his companions, “who were rather angry,” that he would assume responsibility for everything.41 36. The day after the detention, one of Mr. Fernández Prieto’s companions stated that the weapons that had been confiscated were his and that he had the respective permit to carry them. He also stated that “at no time was he aware of what Fernández Prieto was carrying in his case.”42 The same day, Mr. Fernández Prieto stated that, about a month before, someone 36 Decision of the Ombudsman of the city of Buenos Aires of April 27, 2012 (evidence file, folios 68 to 128). 37 Final written arguments of Argentina of June 18, 2020 (merits file, folio 833). 38 Cf. Arrest report, Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1992 (evidence file, folios 129 to 131). 39 Cf. Arrest report, Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1992 (evidence file, folios 129 to 131). Statement of items confiscated from vehicle signed by Fabián Raúl Casanova on May 26, 1992 (evidence file, folios 132 and 133). 40 41 Cf. Statement signed by Juan Carlos Norberto on May 16, 1992 (evidence file, folios 134 and 135). 42 Statement signed by Alberto José Julián Argente on May 27, 1992 (evidence file, folios 136 to 140). 12