53. In the same case the European Court considered it relevant to apply the right to privacy, indicating that “the use of the coercive powers conferred by the legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounts to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life,” which is applicable even if the search takes place in public. It added that to the contrary, in certain cases “the public nature of the search may, in certain cases, compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment.” The European Court indicated that the legislation that gives this sort of authority should indicate, with “with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise.”92 54. On applying these standards to the specific case, the European Court noted that expressions such as that the authority may be used when it is beneficial or useful for preventing acts of terrorism, in the absence of a requirement of “necessity,” could require a determination of proportionality of the measure in each case. It noted that due to this breadth, it is difficult to show, before an oversight body, that the public servant acted beyond the authority granted or engaged in an abuse of authority. It emphasized the fact that the domestic regulation referred to the way in which the procedure should be carried out, but it did not establish “any restriction on the officer’s decision to stop and search.” In response to the State’s argument that the authority is exercised based on “professional intuition,” the European Court indicated as problematic that, under this regulation, it is not necessary for the officer to show the existence of a reasonable suspicion, regulating only the purpose, i.e. to prevent terrorism.93 55. The Court also indicated that there is a clear risk of arbitrariness and discrimination in the granting of such broad powers to a police officer, finding that there are differential impacts with respect to certain groups affected by their exercise.94 56. For his part, the Rapporteur on Torture, referring to the pursuit of terrorism, has underscored that “the exigencies of dealing with terrorist criminal activities cannot justify interpreting the notion of the ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest and then a detention may be based, to the point of impairing its very meaning.”95 57. Along the same lines, the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance has considered that arrests based on racial and ethnic profiles are contrary to international standards due to their discriminatory nature.96 58. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has indicated that if there are reasonable indicia of a violation of the international requirements then the state bears the burden of proof.97 59. Convention Finally, as per the repeated case-law of the Inter-American Court, Article 25(1) of the … includes an obligation for States Party to guarantee all persons under its jurisdiction access to an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. This effectiveness supposes that in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, they get results or responses to the violations of the rights contemplated in the Convention, in the Constitution or in laws.… Thus the proceeding must tend toward the materialization of the protection of ECtHR, Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 2010, paras. 62-65. ECtHR, Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 2010, paras. 83-84. 94 ECtHR, Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 2010, para. 85. 95 United Nations, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Provisional Report, A/57/173, published July 2, 2002, para. 21. 96 United Nations, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mutuma Ruteere, Report on Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, A/HRC/29/46, April 20, 2015, para. 63. 97 United Nations, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion no. 58/2016 re: Paulo Jenaro Díez Gargari, Mexico, A/HRC/WGAD/2016/58, January 30, 2017, para. 19. 92 93 12