failure to place clear limitations on the actions of law enforcement personnel not only affect[d] the liberty and security of the population,”53 but also threatened the institutions involved that required the establishment of a “framework for their actions.” In parallel, the defense filed a motion for release from prison, which was admitted by the federal judge in a decision of October 17, 1997, because Mr. Fernández Prieto had served two-thirds of his sentence, without a final judgment having been delivered.54 44. On November 12, 1998, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter also “the Supreme Court”) rejected the remedy of complaint and confirmed the sentence. As grounds for its decision, the Supreme Court referred to the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States and indicated that, “as a general rule, regarding the exceptions that legitimate stop and search without a court order,” the said court had “accorded special relevance to the time and place in which the procedure [was carried out] and to the existence of urgent reasons to implement this, and had validated arrests without a court order conducted in the light of day and in public places.” Likewise, the judgment affirmed that the said court had also validated the search of vehicles and the resulting evidence obtained “based on the fact that the police officers had a probable cause for suspecting that there was contraband or evidence of an unlawful activity.”55 When considering that this case law applied to the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto, the Supreme Court found that the arguments of the defense were inadmissible, and concluded that: […] An examination of the special circumstances in which the contested action occurred is decisive to consider that the search of the vehicle and the detention of the occupants by the police officers was legitimate. This was because the latter had been ordered to patrol the precinct with the specific function of crime prevention and, in that context, they intercepted a vehicle on noting that the individuals inside it were ‘acting suspiciously’ and presumably committing an offense, a suspicion that was corroborated by finding items linked to drugtrafficking and, subsequently, had immediately informed the judge of the detention.56 45. Owing to the sentence, Mr. Fernández Prieto was deprived of liberty for two years, eight months and five days.57 Mr. Fernández Prieto died in 2020. C. Detention and criminal proceedings against Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro C.1. Detention for identification purposes and body search in 1998 46. According to the respective arrest report, on January 15, 1998, at around midday, Mr. Tumbeiro, an electrician of 44 years of age, 58 was intercepted by agents of the Argentine Federal Police “for identification purposes,”59 while he was walking along a street in Buenos Aires. The police officers asked Mr. Tumbeiro what he was doing in the area, and he answered that he was looking for electronic material for replacement parts and “proceeded to hand over 53 Special remedy of complaint of February 28, 1997 (evidence file, folios 233 to 248). 54 Cf. Ruling of the Federal Court of Mar del Plata of October 17, 1997 (evidence file, folios 1347 to 1349). 55 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of November 12, 1998 (evidence file, folios 249 to 262). 56 262). Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of November 12, 1998 (evidence file, folios 249 to 57 Cf. Ruling of the Federal Court of Mar del Plata of October 17, 1997 (evidence file, folios 1347 1349). 58 Cf. Arrest report of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro of January 15, 1998 (evidence file, folio 1485). 59 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 15