of the inviolability of the home, the only exceptions to which are consent or flagrante delicto – it should be underscored that these raids took place four days after the attack on the truck that was transporting cash. As expert witness María Luisa Piqué stated 20 (transcribed in the judgment), “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.” Therefore, it is evident that the nighttime raids were conducted in violation of domestic law and, consequently, in violation of the principle of legality, the main purpose of this opinion. 21 This non-compliance is especially serious because, in addition to being a violation of domestic law, it disrespects the country’s Constitution. 22 10. In light of this serious situation, the judgment rightly indicates that the protection of the rights to private life, to family life, and to the inviolability of the home signifies the recognition of a personal sphere that is free and immune from arbitrary interference or invasion by third parties or authorities 23 and the understanding of the home as a space in which private and family life can be freely developed. 24 Also, referring specifically to the family unit, the judgment reinforces the State’s duty to protect the family from any arbitrary and unlawful interference. 25 11. Based on these essential considerations as premises, we will now examine the two aspects that are the reason for this opinion: the justification of the prohibition of nighttime raids to protect the rights to private life, to a home, and to the protection of the family – with emphasis on the State’s enhanced duty of protection in relation to groups that are especially vulnerable – and a more detailed analysis of the exceptional nature of nighttime house raids and the increased obligation to substantiate the reasons that justify them, including the reasons why the raid cannot be conducted during working hours. II. The grounds for the restriction of nighttime house raids to safeguard the rights to privacy, to a home, and to protection of the family 12. The place where a family or an individual lives is not an insignificant physical space. To the contrary, it is an essential locus for individuals to enjoy their intimacy and sociability, with the heightened expectation of privacy inherent to a home. Therefore, the protection of the home is not merely a defense of the rights related to property against external interference; rather, its protection is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of the rights to private life and to family life, rights of a special nature and singular relevance, justifying the existence of a specific right for the protection of the home. In addition, in cases such as this one, the obligation to protect the home is based on the specific vulnerability of groups such as women and children, regarding which the State has special obligations of protection. 13. Therefore, any arbitrary incursion of the State into a private home represents a grave threat to those rights, and is aggravated in the case of nighttime police operations. We will now: (a) delimit the concepts of privacy, intimacy and sociability, underlining the way in which these values support each other and should be protected in the context of the home; (b) emphasize the extreme gravity entailed by nighttime house raids, and (c) describe the particular violation on these values in relation to vulnerable groups. 20 Written expert opinion of María Luisa Piqué of June 16, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12550) In this case, in addition to the violation of the parameters of lawfulness, the arbitrary nature of the police operation was also proved because it involved acts of violence and torture, including against a pregnant woman and children; all of this covered in the judgment (paras. 175 to 191). 21 22 Cf. 1995 Constitution of the State of Bolivia, Law No. 1615 of February 6, 1995. Article 21, transcribed in para. 49 of the judgment. 23 Cf. Judgment, para. 147. 24 Cf. Judgment, para. 147. 25 Cf. Judgment, para. 148. 3