107. Although Article 184.5 of this code established an exception to the peremptory nature of obtaining a judicial order in urgent cases, the Court notes, on the one hand, that the code did not establish a definition of urgency and, therefore, gave a wide margin of discretion to the police officers to undertake this type of intervention without prior judicial control, which could evidently result in arbitrary interferences and, on the other hand, that, in the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, it was not proved that a situation of urgency existed because: (a) he duly identified himself to the police officers, providing them with his identity document, and (b) the officers were able to confirm this information by radio and verified that “at that date, there was no legal impediment against him.”139 The Court observes that, even though they had been able to verify Mr. Tumbeiro’s identity, the police officers proceeded with the body search based on conjectures or merely subjective considerations that, in the absence of objective elements, were insufficient to presume that he was hiding objects related to the perpetration of, or participation in, a crime. 108. This being the case, the Court notes that the body search of Mr. Tumbeiro constituted unlawful interference in his private life that was also arbitrary and disproportionate because: (a) the regulation cited to justify it was imprecise and contrary to the principle of the need for the prior legal definition of an offense, because it failed to define the urgent situations when a search could be conducted without a court order; (b) even if the imprecision of the regulations is ignored, the police officers never proved that an urgent situation existed, especially because the initial purpose of the detention was for identification purposes, and this information was provided by Mr. Tumbeiro himself and corroborated by the officers by radio; (c) the “suspicion” based on the emotional state and whether or not Mr. Tumbeiro’s reaction or attire was appropriate constituted a subjective assessment that, in the absence of objective elements, could never justify the need for the measure; (d) even if it was admitted that the foregoing was a sufficient or “urgent” reason to proceed with the search, the fact that this was more than just a superficial pat down of Mr. Tumbeiro’s clothes and that he was obliged to lower his jeans was disproportionate, because it involved a serious violation of Mr. Tumbeiro’s intimacy without the measure seeking to meet relevant juridical rights. Consequently, the Court finds that the body search of Mr. Tumbeiro violated Article 11 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 109. In this regard, the Court recalls that body searches may only be conducted after a duly justified court order has been obtained. Nevertheless, although exceptional situations may exist in which crime prevention is a legitimate goal of the State’s law enforcement personnel, and when it is not possible to obtain a prior court order, and that may justify carrying out a search, the Court considers that this can never be disproportionate or exceed a superficial pat down of a person’s clothes, or involve undressing them or violating their integrity. 110. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 11 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Fernández Prieto in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, because the police searched the vehicle in which he was travelling even though they were not legally authorized to do so, and also for the violation of this article to the detriment of Mr. Tumbeiro in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, because the police officers failed to prove, based on objective criteria, the need to carry out the body search and this was disproportionate; moreover, the applicable laws did not specify the cases whose urgency would justify this measure being taken without a court order. 139 Attestation concerning legal impediment of January 15, 1998 (evidence file, folio 1489). 35