in either case, so that it was not possible to affirm that the police acted for objective reasons that would imply a criminal act in both cases, nor was there a relationship or connectivity between the search and the objective of seeking to prevent a crime. Furthermore, a search was neither necessary nor proportionate taking into account the gravity of the fact that in the case of one of the victims, Mr. Tumbeiro, they proceeded to make him lower his jeans and his underwear. In short, the Commission considered that the actions of the police constituted arbitrary interference in their privacy in violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 61. The representatives argued that the fact that the Mr. Fernández Prieto was stopped and searched due to “the doubtful analogical application of a law” that suffered from “ambiguity and a lack of precision” constituted a violation of his right to honor and dignity, as well as “arbitrary and abusive interference in his private life.” In the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, the representatives indicated that he was searched twice and, during the second search, he was obliged to undress inside a patrol vehicle, which was “especially distressing for his honor and dignity.” They also indicated that the invalidity of the searches meant that the evidence found should have been “considered illegal”; however, to the contrary, it was “assessed as appropriate and essential evidence to convict him.” During the public hearing, the representatives argued that the violations occurred because the searches carried out had no legal basis in the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto and, in the case of Mr. Tumbeiro, the alleged justification failed to abide by the legal reasons that would have authorized the police intervention. Moreover, in both cases the text of the laws was imprecise, general and broad, and thus enabled arbitrary interference in the private lives of these individuals. Consequently, the representatives argued that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro. B. Considerations of the Court 62. The Court notes that this case relates to two specific instances of restrictions of rights due to police actions: the interception and subsequent search of the vehicle in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling by the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires, and the detention for identification purposes and body search of Mr. Tumbeiro by the Argentine Federal Police. These actions involved both a restriction of freedom of movement, and a search of the belongings they had with them, due either to the search of the vehicle in the case of Mr. Fernández Prieto, or to the body search of Mr. Tumbeiro. The Court also recalls that both detentions carried out by the police – in the course of their crime prevention work and not as part of a criminal investigation – became arrests owing to the evidence obtained during the search of the vehicle and the body search, respectively. Therefore, both situations can be examined based on the rights to personal liberty and to the protection of honor and dignity recognized in Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention. 63. In this regard, the Court recalls that the State has acknowledged its international responsibility because, in both situations, the actions of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires and the Argentine Federal Police did not meet the standard of legality, were arbitrary and, also, constituted interference in the private life of Mr. Fernández Prieto and Mr. Tumbeiro, so that they violated Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 11 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. Taking the foregoing into consideration and in order to analyze the scope of the State’s international responsibility, the Court will make a legal analysis of these violations as follows: (a) the right to personal liberty in relation to the interception of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling, and the detention for identification purposes of Mr. Tumbeiro, and (b) the protection of honor and dignity in relation to the search of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling and the body search of Mr. Tumbeiro. 21