B.1. Right to privacy 200. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention237 and in accordance with its case law regarding the protection of privacy, family life, and the home,238 and its powers to freely assess the evidence,239 to use circumstantial evidence, indications and assumptions upon which to base its rulings,240 and as regards the burden of proof 241, the Court notes that the statements of the family members 242 who described the way in which the police entered the home on January 1, 2001, are consistent with the statements made by two of the policemen regarding the way in which the police entered (from the back) the house.243 201. Regarding the inviolability of the home, the Court finds that there is no record that the police entered the house in question with the consent of the victims or that the raid was carried out with a court order, as mandated by Article 47 of Venezuela’s Constitution.244 Moreover, the Court is aware that, given the conflicting versions of the shooting that caused the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui (supra paras. 133 to 138), there is no evidence to suggest that the operation carried out by police at the home of Julia Chiquinquirá Jiménez on January 1, 2001 was a response to Néstor José Uzcátegui’s behavior in the morning, outside his house (supra para. 136). Also, there is no dispute that State agents participated in those actions. 202. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the police officers’ entry into the home of Julia Chiquinquirá Jiménez, without a warrant or legal authorization and without the consent of its residents, constituted an arbitrary and abusive interference with their family home. Therefore, the State violated the right to privacy enshrined in Article 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the family members who were in the house at the time of the events, namely Néstor José Uzcátegui, Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, 237 Article 11 of the American Convention states 1. “Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 238 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 140. 239 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 127 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 141. 240 141. 241 140. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 130. and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 135 and Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 242 Cf. Record of interview with Luis Enrique Uzcátegui on January 18, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5595 and 5596); Record of interview with Julia Chiquinquirá Jiménez Garcia on January 19, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5597 and 5598); Record of interview with Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui Jimenez on January 26,2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, page 5599), and Record of interview with Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui on August 15, 2005 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5605 and 5606). 243 Cf. Record of interviews with Rodriguez Valdemar José and Juan Alexander Rojas Reyes respectively on September 26 and 27, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5602 and 5604). See also the record of the interview with Rodriguez Valdemar José on December 7, 2005 (Evidence file, volume 18, page 5608). 244 Article 47 of the Venezuelan Constitution states: “A person’s home and any private premises are inviolable. They may not be forcibly entered, except with a court order, to prevent the commission of a crime or carry out the decisions handed down by the courts, in accordance with the law, respecting human dignity in all cases.” 50