50. On March 30, 1999, the Prosecutor General filed a special appeal against the said decision. The Prosecutor General argued that, the higher court’s interpretation of the causes for the admissibility of the arrest without a court order entailed an “unnecessarily formal rigorism that impaired the right […] to due process” by using “grounds that were merely apparent to reject evidence that had been validly submitted to the proceedings.” He argued that the reason that justified Mr. Tumbeiro’s arrest “was not simply his nervousness, but he was also behaving strangely and his attire was unusual in light of the area where he was.”71 51. El October 3, 2002, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Criminal Cassation Chamber and ordered that a new ruling be issued. Referring to the United States case law on “probable cause,” “reasonable suspicion” and “emergency situations,” the Supreme Court indicated that, in the specific case, these were applicable because the “suspicious behavior” attributed to Mr. Tumbeiro was “subsequently corroborated by finding drugs.” The Supreme Court found that “no irregularity could be noted” in the proceedings and that the contested judgment disregarded “the legitimacy of the actions taken to prevent crime” and failed to assess the “nervousness” of Mr. Tumbeiro together with “the other circumstances based on which the judicial agents decided to check his identity.”72 52. Mr. Tumbeiro filed an appeal against this judgment, which was rejected by the National Criminal Cassation Chamber on October 24, 2002; consequently, the judgment convicting him was final.73 When the said judgment was declared final, Mr. Tumbeiro was asked to present a community service plan in order to serve his sentence.74 Mr. Tumbeiro presented this plan which involved working for a foundation.75 However, owing to problems concerning the designation of the center where he would provide his services, attributable to the authorities monitoring execution of judgment, Mr. Tumbeiro never provided the said services. On May 2, 2006, the national judge for execution of criminal judgments decided to consider that he had served his sentence.76 Mr. Tumbeiro died on July 30, 2014.77 D. Applicable laws 53. Article 18 of the Argentine Constitution establishes the guarantees of due process and personal liberty as follows: No inhabitant of the Nation may be punished without a previous trial based on a law enacted before the act that gives rise to the process, nor tried by special committees, nor removed from the judges appointed by law before the act for which he is tried. Nobody may be compelled to testify against himself, nor be arrested except by virtue of a written warrant issued by a competent authority. The defense by trial of persons and rights may not be violated. The domicile may not be violated, as well as the written correspondence and private papers; and a law shall determine in which cases and for what reasons their search and occupation shall be allowed. Death penalty for political causes, any kind of tortures and 71 Special appeal of March 30, 1999 (evidence file, folios 263 to 284). 72 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of October 3, 2002 (evidence file, folios 304 to 311). 73 Cf. Judgment of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber of October 24, 2002 (evidence file, folios 1709 to 1711). 74 Cf. Statement of intent of November 6, 2002 (evidence file, folio 1733). 75 Cf. Community service proposal of December 17, 2002 (evidence file, folio 1715). Cf. Ruling of the national judge for execution of criminal judgments of May 2, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1820 to 1822). 76 77 Death certificate of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro of August 1, 2014 (evidence file, folio 357). 17