Castillo; Alfredo Bazán y Rosas; Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón; Freddy Cáceres Castro; Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez; Carlos Eladio Cruz Añez; Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz; Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar; Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana; Jenny Paola Lulleman Gutiérrez; Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez; Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez; Julia Mamanu Mamani; Elacio Peña Córdova; F.E.P.M; Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón; Carlos Álvaro Taboada Valencia; Claudia Valencia Alarcón; Gabriel Valencia Alarcón; Blas Valencia Campos, and Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia. 145. In addition, the State violated the right to personal liberty in relation to the right to be brought promptly before a judge or competent authority established in Article 7(5) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Jenny Paola Lulleman Gutiérrez, Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez, Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez, Julia Mamanu Mamani, Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón, Carlos Álvaro Taboada and Gabriel Valencia Alarcón. 146. Furthermore, the State violated the right to personal liberty, in relation to the right to appeal against the detentions for the court to decide on their lawfulness, established in Article 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Genaro Ahuacho Luna, Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Alfredo Bazán y Rosas, Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Freddy Cáceres, Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez, Carlos Cruz Añez, Patricia Gallardo Ardúz, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar, Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, Elacio Peña Córdova, F.E.P.M., Claudia Valencia Alarcón, Blas Valencia Campos and Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia. B.2. Rights to privacy, inviolability of the home, and family life 147. The Court has established that the protection of private and family life and the home entails the recognition that a personal sphere exists that must be exempt from or immune to arbitrary or abusive interference by third parties or public authorities. Thus, the home and private and family life are intrinsically connected because the home is a space in which private and family life can be freely developed.216 The Court has also considered that the sphere of privacy is characterized by being exempt from or immune to arbitrary or abusive interference by third parties or public authorities.217 In this regard, the home is a space in which private life can be developed freely.218 148. In addition, the Court has determined that the family – without establishing that this is represented by any specific model – is the natural and fundamental element of society and has a right to protection by society and the State. In light of the importance of this right, recognized in Article 17 of the Convention, the Court has established that the State is obliged to facilitate the development and strength of the family unit. Thus, it must take positive and negative measures to protect the individual against unlawful or arbitrary interference in the family and promote effective respect for family life.219 In addition, the Court recalls that interference in family life is exacerbated when it has an impact on the rights of children.220 Moreover, the separation of Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 140. 216 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 194, and Case of Pavez Pávez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 57. 217 218 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 242. Cf. Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, paras. 98 and 99, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 183 219 220 Cf. Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, paras. 98 and 99, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 183. 43