his identity document.”60 Noting that he appeared “extremely nervous,” 61 “after searching his clothes” on the street,62 one of the officers “asked him to get into” the patrol vehicle “until his identity had been verified.”63 While awaiting verification of whether he had a criminal record, the officers noticed that “inside a newspaper [Mr. Tumbeiro] was carrying a white […] substance similar to cocaine hydrocholoride”; they therefore requested the presence of witnesses and proceeded to arrest him.64 47. According to the police officers’ version, Mr. Tumbeiro’s attitude “was suspicious because “his attire was unusual for the area and because he became evasive in the presence of the patrol vehicle.”65 For his part, Mr. Tumbeiro stated that, on that day, he was wearing jeans and a shirt, that the police officers made him “get into the patrol vehicle” and “planted the drug” on him; also, that up until that time he had never had a “record.” Mr. Tumbeiro was also obliged to lower his jeans and underwear inside the patrol vehicle.66 C.2. The criminal proceedings 48. On August 26, 1998, Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital issued a “suspended” sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment against Mr. Tumbeiro67 and a fine of one hundred and fifty pesos for the offense of possession of narcotics established in article 14 of Law 23,737. Mr. Tumbeiro filed a motion for cassation against the judgment and requested that the record of the seizure be annulled considering that “a sufficient level of suspicion” had not existed to proceed to search him without a court order. 68 49. As a result of this appeal, the First National Chamber for Criminal Cassation (hereinafter “the Criminal Cassation Chamber”) acquitted Mr. Tumbeiro in a judgment of March 15, 1999.69 In this judgment, the Criminal Cassation Chamber indicated that “the interception of someone in a public place for [identification] purposes and their subsequent introduction into a police vehicle while awaiting the results of a criminal background check […] constitutes a real arrest that only by using […] euphemisms could be considered a simple delay.” The Criminal Cassation Chamber also indicated that “nervousness” was an “ambiguous circumstance and, as such, could not be used to authorize the said interception,” and added that, in the specific case, the arrest to make a background check was not justified because “no duly founded circumstances existed leading to the presumption that someone had committed an unlawful act […] and not to believe his identity documents.”70 Petition No. 1181-03 of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, lodged before the Inter-American Commission on March 31, 2003 (evidence file, folios 285 to 303). 60 61 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). Cf. Petition No. 1181-03 of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, lodged before the Inter-American Commission on March 31, 2003 (evidence file, folios 285 to 303). 62 63 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 64 Cf. Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). Petition No. 1181-03 of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, lodged before the Inter-American Commission on March 31, 2003 (evidence file, folios 285 to 303). 65 Petition No. 1181-03 of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro, lodged before the Inter-American Commission on March 31, 2003 (evidence file, folios 285 to 303). 66 67 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 68 Cf. Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 69 Cf. Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 70 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 16