personal convictions of the officials who intervene and to the practices of law enforcement personnel that involve a level of arbitrariness that is incompatible with Article 7(3) of the American Convention. When, in addition, these convictions or personal opinions are based on prejudices with regard to the supposed characteristics or conducts of a determined category or group of persons or to their socio-economic status, this may result in a violation of Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention. In line with this, expert witness Juan Pablo Gomara emphasized that: Attributing the suspicion of unlawful conduct to someone merely because they are young and use a certain type of clothing, poor, on the street, a trans woman, etc. clearly involves discriminatory treatment, prohibited by international human rights law. In other words, to a great extent, law enforcement personnel exercise their authority to stop people for identification purposes and to search them using discriminatory profiles.108 82. The use of such profiles supposes a presumption of guilt against anyone who fits them, rather than by the case-by-case evaluation of the objective reasons that effectively indicate that a person is involved in the perpetration of an offense. Accordingly, the Court has indicated that arrests carried out for discriminatory reasons are manifestly unreasonable and, therefore, arbitrary.109 In this case, the context of arbitrary detentions in Argentina, the express acknowledgement of international responsibility by the State, and the absence of explanations concerning the suspicious behavior attributed to Mr. Tumbeiro, over and above his nervousness, his attire,110 and the explicit indication that this did not accord with the area “of poor people”111 where he was walking, reveal that there were no sufficient or reasonable indications of his participation in a criminal offense; rather the detention was made prima facie owing to the mere fact that he did not react in the way in which the officers who intervened perceived to be correct or use an attire that they considered inappropriate based on a subjective preconception of the appearance that the inhabitants of the area should have, which involved discriminatory treatment that made the detention arbitrary. 83. The Court also notes that the domestic courts that ruled on the legality of Mr. Tumbeiro’s detention validated this considering that the police acted prudently and reasonably and in compliance with their duty of crime prevention. In this regard, the Court finds that an action that is initially contrary to the Convention cannot lead to the valid formulation of a criminal charges based on the results obtained. The Court recalls that, in response to the request for annulment filed by the defense based on the illegality of the detention and search of Mr. Tumbeiro, Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 indicated that “the detailed and consistent version of the facts provided by law enforcement personnel and witnesses must be taken into account to justify the police intervention that resulted in the discovery of a case of flagrante delicto consisting of possession of cocaine by Tumbeiro.”112 84. The Oral Court concluded that “the police intervention was justified and supported by the series of facts that determined it,” and that “the search […] was carried out in the context of a prudent action by the police in exercise of their specific functions, based on objective 108 Affidavit made by expert witness Juan Pablo Gomara on March 4, 2020 (merits file, folios 413 to 482). Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 368, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 129. 109 110 Cf. Statement signed on January 15, 1998, by Deputy Inspector GIG I (evidence file, folios 1486 and 1487). 111 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of October 3, 2002 (evidence file, folios 304 to 311). Judgment of Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital of August 26, 1998 (evidence file, folios 1537 to 1576). 112 27