by the officers for the purported suspicion were validated judicially. The Commission reiterates that the evidence obtained in the context of these procedures should be excluded; on not having done so, the domestic authorities allowed both the pretrial detention and the criminal trial and conviction to become arbitrary as well. With respect to pretrial detentions, the Commission also observes that they extended for the unreasonable time of six years in the case of Mr. Fernández and four years in the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, from the deprivation of liberty to the convictions becoming final. 75. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State of Argentina is responsible for violating the rights established at Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 8(1), 11(2), and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. VI. CONCLUSIONS 76. Based on the considerations of fact and law set forth throughout this report on the merits, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for violating the rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, established at Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 8(1), 11(2), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established at Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 77. In light of the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS TO THE STATE OF ARGENTINA, 1. That it make full reparation for the human rights violations found in this report in both the material and moral aspects to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. This reparation should take into account both that the initial stop and search were not in keeping with the requirements of the American Convention, and the proceedings, pretrial detention, and criminal conviction that took place based on the findings of the initial stop and search, in the terms established in this report. 2. That it adopt legislative, administrative, or other measures to prevent the repetition of the human rights violations found in this report. In particular: (i) the State should ensure that the legislation that regulates the power to stop and search persons in public places on the basis of suspicion that they might be committing a crime is based on objective reasons and includes requirements to justify those reasons in each case; (ii) the State should adopt measures to properly train police personnel so as to avoid abuses in the exercise of that power, including trainings on the prohibition on exercising it in a discriminatory manner based on profiles associated with stereotypes; and (iii) the State should ensure the existence and implementation of judicial remedies to address reports of public abuses in the context of the exercise of that power. 15