123. Consequently, according to the laws of Bolivia in force at the time of the events, any arrest or detention had to be carried out based on an order issued by a competent authority. Moreover, the Constitution prohibited nighttime raids except in cases of consent or flagrante delicto. 124. The State argued that the arrests made during the nighttime raids were justified because they were conducted in the presence of flagrante delicto. Indeed, flagrante delicto was the only exception to the prohibition of arrests without a warrant and nighttime raids established in the Bolivian Constitution. According to expert witness María Luisa Piqué: In general, three types of flagrante delicto are recognized. “Flagrante delicto, strictly speaking” (when the perpetrator is detected at the very moment of committing the crime or immediately after); “quasi-flagrante delicto“ (when the perpetrator of the criminal conduct is detected on being pursued), or “fictitious” or “presumed” flagrante delicto (when the act is not seen, but instead objects or indications appear that give rise to a strong presumption that the individual has just participated in a crime).197 125. However, Bolivian law at the time of the events was particularly restrictive when defining in flagrante delicto, considering that it occurred when the perpetrator of the act “is surprised while attempting to commit an offense, committing it, or immediately afterwards while pursued by law enforcement agents, the victim, or eyewitnesses.”198 In this way, at the time of the events, Bolivian law only established the mechanisms of flagrante delicto and quasi-flagrante delicto 126. In the instant case, the Court finds it proved that the crime that resulted in the raids and the arrests of the alleged victims – the robbery of the Prosegur truck – was committed on December 14, 2001, at around 8:15 a.m. (supra para. 51). Similarly, it has also been proved that the raids and the arrests were carried out starting in the early morning hours of December 18, 2001; in other words, four days after the criminal act (supra para. 54). Furthermore, when they were carried out, a criminal investigation was already underway with a prosecutor and a judge because search warrants had been issued. Thus, and as expert witness Piqué asserted: “it is not possible to subsume the situation under any plausible concept of flagrante delicto, especially taking into account the laws of Bolivia in force at the time of the events, which were the most restrictive in the region.”199 127. Consequently, the arrests made in: (1) the house at No. 2319 Las Rosas Street at 2:45 a.m. on December 18, 2001, in which Elacio Peña Córdova, Blas Valencia Campos, his wife Norma Alarcón de Valencia, and his children, Edwin, Claudia and Gabriel were found; (2) the houses at Nos. 2523/2525 Presbítero Medina at 3:00 a.m. on December 18, in which Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón; Genaro Ahuacho Luna; Alfredo Bazán y Rosas and Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia were present; (3) the house at No. 75 Cívica Avenue at 1:00 a.m. on December 18, in which Victoria Gutiérrez de Lulleman together with her children, Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez and Jenny Paola Lulleman de Zaconeta were located, and also Julia Mamanu Mamani, and (4) the house in Iparvi where Patricia Gallardo Ardúz lived, all took place in the context of nighttime raids carried out in violation of an express constitutional prohibition; therefore, they violated Article 7(2) of the American Convention. 128. Moreover, although the arrests of Luis Fernando Lulleman and Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, in the house located at No. 75 Cívica Avenue on December 18, 2001, at 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., 197 Written expert opinion provided by María Luisa Piqué on June 16, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12552). 198 Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folio 2125). 199 Written expert opinion provided by María Luisa Piqué on June 16, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12554). 39