19 juridical culture regarding the meaning and scope of due protection to individuals whose vulnerability has, to a large extent, been artificially constructed. Several elements make the Bulacio Case emblematic. First of all, existence of effective regulations, including Memorandum No. 40, that violate the National Constitution and international human rights treaties. Furthermore, persistence of a more or less systematic policy of razzias, accepted, especially with respect to youths, as a form of special prevention. In addition, there were high levels of impunity of criminal police actions, especially with respect to minors. Finally, in the Bulacio case a decisive aspect was the persistence of a culture of “protection” which does not wish to, cannot, or does not know how to protect vulnerable sectors, other than by setting aside or weakening their rights and guarantees. Finally, an adequate interpretation of the guarantees set forth in the American Convention for adults and minors is indispensable, in consonance with the conclusions of Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, Legal Status and Human Rights of the Child, issued by the Inter-American Court as orientation to channel State activity in terms of strict respect for human rights of all persons. b) Expert opinion of Máximo Emiliano Sozzo, attorney at law. The Republic of Argentina has a federal political system in which a National State and 23 Provincial States coexist. Policies regarding crime are developed at both levels, with differing competences for each. Through a 1994 Constitutional Reform, the city of Buenos Aires obtained the status of “autonomous government.” Nevertheless, said constitutional change did not bring with it the immediate establishment of criminal system institutions of the type that exist in the other Provincial States –police, criminal justice, enforcement of criminal judgment-. During the period from 1991 to 2003, the crime control policy in the city of Buenos Aires was largely designed and implemented by the National State –with various exception-. In that same period, the police institution in this city has been the Argentine Federal Police. Since the establishment of the Federal Capital Police –its predecessor- it developed intervention techniques aimed at “crime prevention,” which have traditionally been grounded on legal instruments and regulations and shaped by cultural implementation of positivist criminology. These techniques include police presence and surveillance in public spaces and police detention of individuals without a court order. In the framework of the latter technique of police intervention, one can in turn highlight police detention of individuals without a court order, supported by police edicts. As an institution, the police force, especially in the case of the Argentine Federal Police, was a complex organization with high levels of autonomy with respect to national and provincial governments. It was not until the 1990s that various attempts were made to have an impact on Argentine police institutions, seeking to address their traditional autonomy and modifying police regulations, organization, and culture. “Detention to verify criminal record” was regulated until 1991, under federal jurisdiction, by Decree-Law No. 333/58, ratified by Law No. 14467 –the Organizational Law of the Argentine Federal Police-. The former authorized police