justify the suspicion. In addition, the legislation does not include any requirement that the police authorities be accountable, in writing and to their superiors, for the detail of the reasons that led to the arrest and search. In addition, from the context described in the section of facts proven, it appears that the incidents in this case are not isolated but that these provisions and their application in practice have resulted in abusive actions by the police. 67. In the case of Mr. Fernández, the arrest report only indicates that he had a “suspicious attitude.” The IACHR takes note that said report does not explain what “suspicious attitude” means when applied to the circumstances of time, manner, and place of Mr. Fernández, nor does it mention other reasons for searching him and the vehicle in which he was traveling. 68. In the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, from the information submitted by the parties it appears that the initial detention was based on (i) a supposed “state of nervousness”; (ii) that his attire “was not similar to what one sees in the zone”; and (iii) that he indicated that he was in the zone to purchase electronic products when such products are not sold there. 69. The State confirmed the foregoing on noting that the police action, before verifying the supposed possession of narcotics, was based on the “reasonable suspicion” identified by the respective agents. 70. Accordingly, the Commission observes that in neither of the two arrests were the objective elements that led to a degree of reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed established in any detail, in the respective police documentation. In the case of Mr. Prieto, that lack of explanation was absolute. In the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, that the explanation related to “state of nervousness” and inconsistency between the attire and his reason for being in that place is not only insufficient to justify, in the eyes of a reasonable spectator, a suspicion of crime, but moreover may reveal a certain discrimination based on appearance and the prejudices about that appearance in relation to the respective zone. As indicated, powers of this nature that are not accompanied by additional safeguards create a risk of discriminatory actions based on profiles associated with stereotypes. 71. In that regard, it is possible to establish that the stops and searches in the instant case not only failed to meet the standard of lawful and non-arbitrary, but are in the context already indicated in the section on Facts Proven and identified domestically and internationally. 72. In the face of this situation of lack of objective justification for the police action in the specific cases, the judicial authorities who heard the respective appeals did not offer effective remedies, for not only did they continue with the State’s failure to require objective reasons for the exercise of the legal power to stop persons based on suspicion, but they validated, as lawful, the reasons given by the police officers, which, as indicated, in the view of the Commission are entirely insufficient to justify a deprivation of liberty associated with the suspicion of criminal conduct. To the contrary, based on the respective motivations, it would appear that an effort is made to justify the suspicion at the moment of the stops and searches based on the subsequent corroboration that they had in fact engaged in criminal conduct. 73. The European Court addressed this situation of subsequent corroboration in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, indicating: “The Court is mindful of the fact that the applicant’s case has been taken to trial…. That, however, does not affect the Court’s findings in connection with the present complaint, in which it is called upon to examine whether the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty during the pre-trial period was justified on the basis of information or facts available at the relevant time.”102 74. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that the subsequent corroboration that the persons affected may indeed have been engaged in criminal conduct is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing the violations stemming from the stop, search, and arrest. Moreover, the Commission considers that the inconsistency of those procedures with the requirements of the American Convention should have led the domestic authorities to exclude any evidence obtained from the use of procedures in violation of the alleged victims’ rights. This exclusion should have operated as the result of serious police and judicial review of the actions by the police officers, which did not happen in this case. To the contrary, as explained, the reasons given 102 ECtHR. Case Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan. Judgment of May 22, 2014, para. 100. 14