legitimacy of the reasons mentioned by the different courts that heard the case to justify the search and subsequent arrest as a matter related to compliance with the duty of crime prevention, or because the evidence obtained from it could prove Mr. Fernández Prieto’s guilt, the rulings made confirm that the interception and subsequent search and arrest were not carried out in application of the law in force at that time. 75. Consequently, the interception of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling, which resulted in its subsequent search and his arrest and criminal prosecution, constituted a violation of Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to examine whether the State’s actions constituted violations of Article 7(3) and 7(5) of the Convention. This is without prejudice to the fact that the State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of the said provisions of the Convention. B.1.2. Analysis of the illegality and arbitrary nature of the arrest of Mr. Tumbeiro 76. The Court recalls that the Argentine Constitution establishes that no one may be “arrested unless this is based on a written order of a competent authority.”100 Meanwhile, article 284 of the National Criminal Procedural Code, in force as of October 1992, and therefore in force at the time of Mr. Tumbeiro’s arrest in 1998, establishes that: “[p]olice officers and agents have the duty to arrest, even without a court order: (a) anyone who attempts to commit a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, at the time they are about to commit this; (b) anyone who, having been legally detained, escapes; (c) exceptionally, anyone against whom there are strong indications of guilty and when there is an imminent danger of flight or serious obstruction of the investigation and only to bring him before the competent judge immediately to decide on his detention, and (d) anyone surprised in flagrante delicto committing a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment […].”101 77. In addition, Law 23,950, amending the 1958 Organic Law of the Federal Police, establishes that, other than the cases established in the criminal procedural regulations, no one may be arrested without an order from the competent judge, unless: "[…] if there are duly justified circumstances leading to the presumption that someone has committed or may commit a misdemeanor or a crime and that person does not reliably prove his identity, he may be taken to the corresponding police station, notifying the judge with correctional jurisdiction on duty, for the minimum time necessary to establish his identity and this may never exceed ten hours. The said individual shall be allowed to communicate immediately with a family member or person of his confidence to advise them of his situation. Anyone retained for purposes of identification may not be accommodated together with, or in places destined for, those detained for misdemeanors or crimes.”102 78. The Court recalls that, in a statement of January 15, 1998, one of the officers who intervened in the arrest of Mr. Tumbeiro gave an account of the circumstances that led to this stating that, on the day in question, when he was patrolling the “precinct,” he “observed a man wearing black shoes, blue jeans and a check shirt, who, on noting the police presence, became extremely nervous and hesitant while trying to avoid the police vehicle. Consequently, 100 Constitution of the Argentine Nation supra, article 18. Law 23,984 of September 4, 1991, issuing “the Criminal Procedural Code.” Official Gazette of September 29, 1991, article 284. 101 Law 23,950 of September 4, 1991, substituting “paragraph 1 of article 5 of Decree Law 333/58, ratified by Law No. 14,467.” Official Gazette of September 11, 1991. 102 25