norms and the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs involved in the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.131 Therefore, when creating and interpreting the regulations that authorize the police to carry out detentions without a court order or in flagrante delicto, the domestic authorities, including the courts, are obliged to take into account the interpretation of the American Convention made by the Inter-American Court that such detentions must be carried out in compliance with the standards for personal liberty that have been reiterated in this chapter. 101. Consequently, the Court concludes that both the Procedural Code, based on which the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling was intercepted, and the National Criminal Procedural Code and Law 23,950, on the basis of which Mr. Tumbeiro was detained for identification purposes, suffered from normative defects in the regulation of the situations that supposedly authorized this police action. Despite this, in both cases, the judgements delivered justified the police action based on these regulations. This constituted a violation of Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 2 of this instrument. B.2. Protection of honor and dignity 102. The Court has stipulated, with regard to Article 11 of the American Convention, that although this provisions is entitled “Right to Privacy” [“Protection of honor and dignity” in the Spanish version], its content includes, inter alia, the protection of private life.132 The Court has affirmed that the sphere of personal and family privacy protected by this article is characterized by being exempt or immune from interference or arbitrary or abusive intrusion by third parties or public authorities.133 Consequently, the Court considers that the possessions that a person is carrying when he is in a public place, even when that person is inside a car, represent belongings that, similar to those that are to be found in his home, are included within the sphere of protection of the right to private life and privacy. Therefore, they may not be subjected to arbitrary interference by third parties or the authorities. 103. In the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto, the Court recalls that, on May 26, 1992, the car in which he was travelling was intercepted by agents of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires, who searched it based on the presumed “suspicious behavior” of its occupants. The Court recalls that the Procedural Code in force at the time of the incident did not contain any specific provision that would have authorized the police officers to search the car without a prior court order. Consequently, since any limitation of the right to privacy must, as a first requirement in order not to be categorized as abusive or arbitrary, be “established by law 134 and, in this case, the inspection without a court order of a vehicle detained by a police control was not expressly established in the procedural code in force, the Court considers that the Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 124, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 107. 131 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 193, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 141. 132 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 194, and Gender Identity, and Equality and NonDiscrimination with regard to Same-Sex Couples. State Obligations in relation to Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights deriving from a relationship between Same-Sex Couples (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 86. 133 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27,,2009. Series C No. 193, para. 56. 134 33