the investigating judge and, therefore, were unable to have a judge review the lawfulness of their arrest. In relation to the right to privacy and the inviolability of the home, and the right to honor and dignity, they argued that all the raids conducted were unlawful and, therefore, they also violated Article 11 of the Convention. 112. Representative Jemio Mendoza argued that, from the time of her arrest and up until the time it was declared that she had served her sentence on January 30, 2004, Ms. Gallardo Ardúz had been deprived of her liberty arbitrarily and abusively. He indicated that the police officers did not show her the warrant for the raid, or explain her rights as a detainee. Therefore, he considered that the State had violated Article 7 to the detriment of Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz. He also considered that the State had violated Article 17(1) to the detriment of María Fernanda Peña Gallardo owing to the alleged acts committed against her son, A.A.D.P. 113. Representative Gómez Rojas argued that the raids and arrests of the alleged victims were carried out without any legal grounds and were, therefore, unlawful and contrary to the rights to personal liberty and privacy. He added that the State had violated the rights of the family, because the members of Valencia Alarcón’s family witnessed the ill-treatment and violence she suffered. In addition, he argued that the State’s failure to ensure effective measures of protection for the family of Blas Valencia Campos resulted in the rupture of the family unit, violating the rights of the family. He added that, during the raid on the home of Blas Valencia Campos, the police officers took money and items of value such as jewelry without authorization, and the latter were not returned, even though they were unrelated to the case investigated. He argued that the State had not specifically disputed those facts or provided an explanation about what happened. Consequently, he considered that the State had violated the right to property of Blas Valencia Campos and of the members of his family who lived with him. 114. The State argued that, in the circumstances of the case, the police strategy could not be announced in advance to avoid the escape of those implicated in the robbery. It also insisted that it was necessary to take into account the particular characteristics of the group that carried out the robbery which killed three people and violated the personal integrity of four others. It argued that the raids were conducted respecting the law, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It explained that, in the instant case, the suspects were in flagrante delicto and, therefore, the exceptions were applied that allowed the formalities for an arrest established in the Constitution and in the Code of Criminal Procedure to be obviated. It added that, when the raids were conducted, the prosecutor was present, and he had shown a dossier on the raids with the judge’s signature. It therefore considered that the orders for the raids were search warrants issued previously by a competent authority. Moreover, since those documents referred to an act committed by a criminal organization that was holding the evidence of the iter criminis, it considered that the said organization was in flagrante delicto. It underscored that the actions of the police formed part of an Immediate Reaction Plan, coordinated by the competent institutions within the parameters of the constitutional and legal norms in force. It added that the competent judicial authority’s authorization of special days and times for the raids was a necessary and reasonable measure, taking into account that they involved an organization that included foreigners who were former military personnel, and that there was a risk of flight. Furthermore, the use of force during the raids and arrests was proportionate. Consequently, it concluded that it had complied with the duty to respect the rights to personal liberty, privacy and inviolability of the home cited in Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Right to personal liberty 115. First, it should be recalled that States are obliged to guarantee security and maintain public order within their territory and, to this extent, they must take the necessary measures to tackle 36