that decided on the legality of the interception of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling, its search, and his subsequent detention did not rule on how this fell within one of the situations established by the Procedural Code, but merely validated it considering that the police acted in compliance with their task of crime prevention, and due to the evidence obtained by means of this action. 72. In this regard, the Court recalls that, on July 19, 1996, the federal judge convicted Mr. Fernández Prieto of the offense of transportation of drugs established in article 5(c) of Law 23,737. The federal judge found that it had been duly proven that, based on the circumstances of manner, time and place, the accused was transporting a certain amount of marihuana. Regarding the defense counsel’s arguments concerning the illegality of the detention and the invalidity of the evidence obtained, the federal judge stated that “the judicial officials acted within the powers granted to them by the formal law because, as they noted in the contested report, the vehicle in which Fernández Prieto and the others were travelling was being driven in a suspicious manner and this was what caused them to intercept it. They then conducted the corresponding procedure and obtained the known result. Evidently, the prior situation is not being justified with the situation resulting from the inspection; rather, it is described in order to indicate the consequence.” He also affirmed that “[y]ou should enlighten me as to whether, in a situation such as the one described, the law enforcement personnel did not have the real authority to proceed as they did, not only to perform a crucial task assigned to them, but also to avoid evils from which society and the law have the right to protect themselves.”97 73. The Supreme Court, as the organ that concludes judicial discussions, also ruled on the validity of the interception of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling, considering “that it found proved the existence of a situation of suspicion that an offense had presumably been committed,” stating that “in order to determine whether the precautionary measure based on the existence of a situation of suspicion that an offense had presumably been committed was legitimate, it is necessary to examine this in light of the circumstances in which the detention took place.”98 In particular, regarding the validity of the legitimacy of the stop and search action, it indicated the following: 15) That the standards indicated in the foregoing considerations are applicable to the case because the examination of the special circumstances in which the action took place was 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 persons inside it were “behaving suspiciously” as if they were committing an offense, a suspicion that was corroborated when they found items linked to drug-trafficking; and following this procedure, they immediately communicated the detention to the judge.99 74. The Court notes that the different domestic judgments that were delivered on the validity of the interception and search of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling were based on considerations related to the effectiveness of crime prevention and on arguments of a consequentialist nature (which validated the police action based on the results obtained: that is, the evidence found), without taking into consideration whether the police action conformed to the enabling circumstances established by the Procedural Code for conducting an arrest without a court order. This Court considers that, irrespective of the 97 Judgment of the Federal Court of Mar del Plata of July 19, 1996 (evidence file, folios 169 to 196). 98 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of November 12, 1998 (evidence file, folios 249 to 262). 99 262). Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of November 12, 1998 (evidence file, folios 249 to 24