the examination of the observance of Article 7(2) of the Convention entails an analysis of compliance with the requirements established, as specifically as possible and “beforehand,” by domestic law concerning the “causes” and “conditions” for the deprivation of physical liberty. If domestic law, in both the material and formal aspects, is not observed when depriving an individual of his or her liberty, this deprivation of liberty will be unlawful and contrary to the American Convention in light of Article 7(2).94 B.1.1 Analysis of the legality of the arrest of Mr. Fernández Prieto 68. Article 18 of the Argentine Constitution establishes that “[n]o one may be obliged to testify against himself, or be arrested unless this is based on a written order of a competent authority.”95 Meanwhile, article 4 of the Procedural Code in force at the time when Mr. Fernández Prieto was detained established that: “[t]he Chief of Police of the Capital and his agents have the obligation to detain individuals who they surprise in flagrante delicto and those against whom there are strong indications or prima facie evidence of guilt, and must make them available to the competent judge immediately.” Article 184.4 of this Code establishes that “[…] in the case of public offenses, officials shall have the following duty and authority: To proceed to detain anyone presumed guilty in the cases mentioned in article 4.”96 69. The Court recalls that the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling was intercepted and, subsequently, searched in Mar del Plata on May 26, 1992, because an inspector and two sergeants of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires stated that they had observed the vehicle in which he was travelling with “three individuals behaving suspiciously.” The officers made the passengers get out of the vehicle and searched it. In the vehicle the police found some packages of what appeared to be marihuana and a revolver. Subsequently, on July 19, 1996, the federal judge sentenced Mr. Fernández Prieto to five years’ imprisonment for the offense of transportation of drugs. 70. The Court notes that the Procedural Code established three situations for arresting someone without a court order, namely: (a) if they were surprised in flagrante delicto; (b) if there were strong indications or prima facie evidence of guilt, and (c) if there was some type of indication or prima facie evidence of guilt. However, the Court notes that, at no time during the procedure followed against Mr. Fernández Prieto did the police officers state – or justify – that the interception of the car was based on any of the three situations established by article 4 of the said code, or on any other regulation, in order to make an arrest without a court order. The police officers merely indicated that the individuals who were in the car were “behaving suspiciously.” It is clear that the presumed “suspicious behavior” was not a situation comparable to flagrante delicto or to a possible “strong indication or prima facie evidence of guilt,” as required by the said code. 71. The Court considers that this failure to justify the detention of Mr. Fernández Prieto by one of the legal causes clearly fails to comply with the requirement of legality, because the police carried out an action that constituted a restriction of Mr. Fernández Prieto’s personal liberty – insofar as they obliged the car in which he was travelling to stop; then they made him get out of it, they proceeded to search the vehicle and, finally, they deprived him of his liberty – acting outside the powers authorized by the Procedural Code in order to carry out these actions without a court order. Moreover, the Court also notes that the domestic courts Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 111. 94 95 Constitution of the Argentine Nation supra, article 18. Law 2372 of October 4, 1888, issuing the “Code of Criminal Procedures for the Federal Judiciary and the Ordinary Court of the Capital and of the National Territories,” articles 4 and 184.4. 96 23