right to the inviolability of the home, 31 a right that constitutes a guarantee of the right to privacy and to due process of law. 32 b. The enhanced gravity of nighttime home raids 20. Historically, in different cultures, nighttime has been perceived as “man’s first necessary evil, our oldest and most haunting terror.” 33 Indeed, the risks to human integrity are magnified between sunset and sunrise, a commonly held perception, even with all the technological progress made over time that has facilitated human life during the night. 21. This perception is correct in relation to the specific circumstances of nighttime raids because – owing to the hour – this time is more advantageous than daytime for the perpetration of human rights violations, owing to the reduced circulation of persons and less possibility of help or eyewitnesses. Such conditions are demonstrably favorable to the abuse of authority in state operations. An example of abusive state practices in these circumstances can be found in Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia (2020), in which the European Court of Human Rights indicated that “[t]he risk of abuse of authority and violation of human dignity is inherent in a situation such as the one which arose in the present case, where the applicants were confronted in their home early in the morning by a number of specially trained policemen.” 34 22. Our continent is no stranger to this problem. Historically, nighttime police and military operations have resulted in the perpetration of gross human rights violations. It is sufficient to recall, for example, the case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras (2003), which took place in the context of the forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions in that country in the 1980s. In that case, the victim was twice arrested in his parent’s home during the night, in the absence of an arrest warrant or a situation of in flagrante, in violation of the 1982 Honduran Constitution, article 99 of which prohibited house raids between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. – and this led the Court to conclude that such raids violated the Convention. 35 23. Another reason for the special gravity of nighttime raids is the heightened and reasonable expectation of intimacy during those hours. 36 In general, the most private family activities take place at night, so that the unlawful entry of police authorities into the home during the night hours produces more anxiety and is interpreted as more threatening, as recognized by the Supreme Court of the state of Minnesota in State v. Jackson. 37 In addition, the residents are in a more vulnerable situation if they are sleeping, 31 Cf. IACHR. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 57, December 31, 2009. Available at: https://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/seguridad.eng/citizensecurity.toc.htm. §176 32 Cf. IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 rev.17, March 2006. Available at: https://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Defenders/DEFENDERS. ENGLISH.pdf. § 97. EKIRCH, A. R. At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past. New York: Norton, 2006. p. 3. Regarding the night, Borges wrote: “Nadie puede contemplarla sin vértigo.” BORGES, Jorge Luís. Historia de la noche. In: Obras completas, 1975-1985. Buenos Aires, Emecé, 1989, p. 201. 33 34 Cf. ECHR. Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia, n. 28926/10, Judgment of January 30, 2020, para. 114. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99, para.79. 35 36 “The reason for the prohibition is that at night the home is a particularly sensitive place in terms of private life, and the time when people generally carry out the most intimate activities, such as sleeping, bathing, dining, watching television, reading, and discussing personal matters. It is the time for family reunions, when the children are at home, when people are in their nightwear or even sleeping. Therefore, there is a very high expectation of privacy.” Written expert opinion of María Luisa Piqué of June 16, 2022 (evidence file, folio 12550). 37 Cf. Supreme Court of Minnesota. State of Minnesota v. Jackson, No. A05-247 (2007). 5