[he] proceeded to stop the vehicle and, to verify whether there was a record of the man having any legal problems, he was invited to get into the vehicle while his identity was verified by a radial digital system.” The officer stated that “as he continued to be extremely nervous, the collaboration of witnesses was requested […] and, in their presence, the personal effects of this individual were examined.”103 This statement, together with the factual narration that appears in the judgments in the criminal proceedings,104 allows the Court to observe that Mr. Tumbeiro was detained for identification purposes on the basis of three facts: (a) he was nervous in the presence of the police; (b) his attire was not in keeping with the attire that the police perceived as appropriate for the area where he was found, and (c) he had indicated that he was looking for materials that were “totally foreign to what one might find in the commercial establishments in the area.”105 79. The Court notes that, under Law 23,950, temporarily holding a person for identification purposes must be duly justified by circumstances that “lead to the presumption that someone may have committed or could commit a criminal offense or misdemeanor.” In this specific case, the Court considers that none of the reasons that the police gave to hold Mr. Tumbeiro and ask for his identity documents constituted, separately or as a whole, sufficient and specific facts or information that would allow a reasonable observer to objectively infer that he had probably committed or was about to commit a criminal offense or misdemeanor. To the contrary, the reasons for the detention of Mr. Tumbeiro for identification purposes appeared to respond to preconceptions about how a person who is in a certain place should be dressed, how he should behave in the presence of the police, and what activities he should be carrying out in that place. 80. This scenario corresponds to the opinion of expert witness Sofia Tiscornia concerning the biased categorization of the attitude or appearance of a person as suspicious based on the police officers’ preconceived ideas about the presumed dangerousness of certain social groups and the elements that determine whether someone belongs to them. 106 The Court recalls that stereotypes consist in preconceptions about the attributes, conducts, roles or characteristics of individuals who belong to an identified group.107 The use of stereotyped reasoning by law enforcement personnel may result in discriminatory – and therefore arbitrary – actions. 81. In the absence of objective elements, the characterization of a certain conduct or appearance as suspicious, or of a certain reaction or movement as nervous, responds to the 103 Statement signed on January 15, 1998, by Deputy Inspector GIG I (evidence file, folios 1486 and 1487). Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital stated the following: “[O]n January 15, 1998, […], deputy officer […] intercepted for identification purposes the individual who proved to be [Mr. Tumbeiro[], near Corea Street […]. He was invited to get into the police vehicle until his identity had been corroborated, noting that he was extremely nervous. While they were awaiting the answer, they noted that in the middle of the Clarín newspaper that he was carrying there was a transparent nylon bag containing a white […] substance similar to cocaine hydrochloride. Consequently, the presence of witnesses was requested and, in their presence, he proceeded to read him his rights […].” Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital of August 26, 1998 (evidence file, folios 1537 to 1576). 104 105 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of October 3, 2002 (evidence file, folios 304 to 311). The expert witness indicated: “What the police call their policing intuition, […] but essentially and without doubt, the police detain people for the way they dress, the way they behave; we all know that different social groups behave in different ways. Consequently, it is certain that a young man from a working-class neighborhood who is walking through a residential area will have 100% possibility of being stopped, and this is exclusively due to stereotyping. Moreover, in our research, we have noted occasions in which middle-class boys use clothing worn by poor people and are stopped; then, when their identity is discovered they are released. In other words, there are many arrests based on social class, and stereotypes. Evidently, the police operate in this way.” Opinion provided by Sofía Tiscornia before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on March 11, 2020. 106 Cf. Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 223. 107 26