31. The State emphasized that the rights guaranteed in Article 8 of the American Convention were respected in the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims, as their statements were received in the presence of their attorneys, both their private attorneys and those provided by the Bolivian Public Defender’s Office. It indicated that the alleged victims were tried in accordance with the criminal procedures established in the country, by independent, regular, technical tribunals previously established by law, in full compliance with the American Convention. 32. The State added that in the course of the oral proceedings, many of the defendants made use of their right to silence, a procedural guarantee that was respected. It indicated that in the course of the proceedings, no “illegal or hearsay” evidence was presented, as is evident in the most important procedural records in the file, to wit: informational statements by the defendants; records of the defendants’ hearing on precautionary measures; the indictment by the Public Ministry; records of the oral, public proceedings; the conviction issued by the Second Sentencing Court; the records of the limited-appeal hearing, the decision to hear the appeal, and the ruling on the appeal. 33. The State noted that while the Bolivian Code of Criminal Procedures, in its Article 13, establishes that evidence obtained under torture, mistreatment, coercion, threats, deceit, or violation of individuals’ fundamental rights has no legal value, “the spirit of this law clearly intends that in the case of torture, this would have to have a direct bearing on the legal value of the evidence or the information obtained through torture.” 34. The State specified that to put that into effect, Article 172 of the same law establishes “evidentiary exclusion” as an ideal mechanism by which to exclude evidence obtained under torture from the process and take away its legal value. The State emphasized that the alleged victims did not use this legal mechanism. The State stressed that the video in which the arrest operation supposedly was recorded was neither offered nor used in the oral proceedings. 35. The State provided information on the jurisprudential line of the Bolivian Constitutional Tribunal, under which any violation of rights committed at the time of and during arrest must be reported at the hearing on precautionary measures, which, according to the State, did not occur in this case. 36. The State reiterated that the use of physical force was due to the high degree of danger posed by the criminals and to the fact that they were armed with high-caliber weapons and that the criminal gang was of an international nature with military and police training, that they had killed three persons in the assault, and that they had criminal records. 37. According to the State, the police set in motion several official investigations of an internal nature, and in none of those were there indications of sufficient evidence to involve members of the National Police as perpetrators of torture or abuse. The State stressed that the police who participated in this operation were selected according to their professional profiles and had knowledge and experience in this area. It added that all officials act in accordance with standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality and that in accordance with Law 1178, the lawfulness of operations and activities carried out by any public servant is presumed, unless demonstrated to the contrary. 38. The State indicated that the judgment in the PROSEGUR case ordered that the case history be conveyed to the Public Ministry for the investigation 6