called Julio had contacted him – because an individual with the alias “Pantera” had given him his telephone number – and offered him the possibility of earning US$500 (five hundred United States dollars) to take some “merchandise” to Mar del Plata. He stated that he had met up with Julio on a corner in Buenos Aires and that the latter had advanced him US$200.00 (two hundred United States dollars), and that, as regards Julio, he only knew the address that the latter had given him in order to deliver the packages to a supposed Guillermo. He clarified that his two companions, who had invited him to travel with them, were unaware of the situation. Also, when he was shown the arrest report, he stated that he had signed it in good faith because “one could not see anything that night” and that the factual account was incorrect because the packages seized were not in the trunk, but rather under and towards the back of the driver’s seat.43 B.2. The criminal proceedings 37. On June 16, 1992, the federal judge of Mar del Plata (hereinafter “the federal judge”) ordered the pre-trial detention of Mr. Fernández Prieto because, owing to the nature of the offense he was accused of – namely, transportation of narcotics – it was the federal judiciary that had jurisdiction to hear the case. The judge argued that, based on where and how the packages were confiscated, there was evidence to characterize the incident as the offense of transportation of narcotics established in article 5(c) of Law 23,737.44 On November 8, 1995, the deputy federal prosecutor (hereinafter “the federal prosecutor”) filed charges against Mr. Fernández Prieto for the offense of the transportation of 2,370 grammes of cut marijuana distributed in six packages, requesting that he be sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Regarding the inconsistency as regards the place where the packages had been found, the federal prosecutor indicated that this was “irrelevant” because Mr. Fernández Prieto “had assumed full responsibility for the custody of the items seized.”45 38. On February 23, 1996, the federal judge rejected an objection of res judicata filed by Mr. Fernández Prieto’s defense counsel, a decision that was confirmed by the Federal Chamber of Mar del Plata on April 29, 1996.46 On May 26, 1996, Mr. Fernández Prieto’s defense counsel asked that his client be acquitted and that the proceedings be declared null and void. In his brief, the defense counsel argued that there were no “strong indications […] that would have authorized the police officers to [carry out] the interception, arrest and search […],” so that this constituted “an arbitrary measure.” The defense counsel also argued that it was “not possible to curtail the liberty” of Mr. Fernández Prieto or proceed to “search his belongings just because his behavior appeared to be suspicious,” indicating that “a mere suspicion […] could never authorize such a procedure.”47 39. On July 19, 1996, the federal judge sentenced Mr. Fernández Prieto to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three thousand pesos for the offense of transportation of narcotics. In his judgment, the judge found that it had been “full and legally proved […] that, on May 26, 1992, in the indicated circumstances of manner, time and place […] the accused […] was transporting a certain quantity of […] marijuana.” Regarding the defense’s argument of the absence of sufficient grounds to make the arrest, the judge indicated that the police officers “acted within their legal remit,” because the vehicle in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was 43 Cf. Statement signed by Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto on May 27, 1992 (evidence file, folios 141 to 145). 44 Cf. Ruling No. 93/95 of June 16, 1992, ordering the pre-trial detention of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto. Brief with charges brought against Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto of December 14, 1995 (evidence file, folios 146 to 150). 45 46 Cf. Judgment of Federal Chamber of Mar del Plata of April 29, 1996 (evidence file, folios 1478 to 1471). 47 Defense brief of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto of May 26, 1996 (evidence file, folios 151 to 168). 13