search of the car in which Mr. Fernández Prieto was travelling constituted unlawful interference in his private life and non-compliance with the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions. 104. With regard to Mr. Tumbeiro, the Court considers that a body search may have an impact on, and constitute a violation of, the protection of honor and dignity. Therefore, any body search that the authorities carry out on persons who are detained must be conducted duly considering the limits imposed by the American Convention. In a similar case, the European Court of Human Rights has referred to the sphere of protection of the right to private life in relation to the search of persons in a public place. In the words of that court: Irrespective of whether in any particular case correspondence or diaries or other private documents are discovered and read or other intimate items are revealed in the search, the Court considers that the use of the coercive powers conferred by the legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounts to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life. Although the search is undertaken in a public place, this does not mean that Article 8 is inapplicable. Indeed, in the Court's view, the public nature of the search may, in certain cases, compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment. Items such as bags, wallets, notebooks and diaries may, moreover, contain personal information which the owner may feel uncomfortable about having exposed to the view of his companions or the wider public.135 105. The Inter-American Court has also indicated in its case law that the right to private life is not an absolute right and, therefore, may be restricted by the States provided that the interference is nor abusive or arbitrary. Consequently, such interference must be established by law, seek a legitimate purpose, and comply with the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality; in other words, it must be necessary in a democratic society. 136 In this case, on January 15, 1998, Mr. Tumbeiro was stopped by officers of the Argentine Federal Police while walking in a neighborhood of the city of Buenos Aires, because his behavior “was suspicious” and his attire was supposedly unusual for the area. Even though he was detained for “identification purposes,” and precisely due to this, Mr., Tumbeiro showed the agents his identity document and they were able to verify its authenticity and correctness, even verifying that he had no criminal record.137 The agents then proceeded to search him and, to this end, they made him get into the patrol vehicle and obliged him to lower his underwear. 106. In this regard, the Court observes, first, that under the National Criminal Procedural Code, in force at the time of this intervention, body searches could only be carried out following a reasoned court order “provided there were sufficient grounds to presume that an individual is hiding items related to a crime on his body.”138 In this case, there was no prior court order and the reasons given by the officers to justify, first, the detention for identification purposes and, subsequently, the search – namely, Mr. Tumbeiro’s attire, his alleged suspicious behavior, and his presumed nervousness – could never constitute “sufficient grounds” in the terms of article 230 of the said code that would allow the presumption that he was hiding objects related to the perpetration of a crime and, therefore, that would permit conducting a body search. 135 63. ECHR. Case of Guillan and Quinton v. The United Kingdom, (No. 4158/05), Judgment of June 28, 2010, para. Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 56 and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 74. 136 137 Cf. Attestation concerning legal impediment of January 15, 1998 (evidence file, folio 1489). Law 23,984 of September 4, 1991, issuing “the Criminal Procedural Code.” Official Gazette of September 29, 1991, article 230. 138 34