affect the community at large, and therefore the supposed violations are not consonant with the rights recognized in the Convention. 10. As regards the right to humane treatment, after affirming that the Prosegur robbery was carried out with violence and cruelty, the State argues that, owing to the dangerous and malicious nature of the conduct of the criminal group, which used heavy-caliber weapons, was international in nature (its members included Peruvians and Bolivians), had military and police knowledge, killed their victims in cold blood, and had criminal records, it was necessary to prevent them claiming more innocent victims, threatening society and undermining social order, harmony, and peace. Therefore, their apprehension could not be made in a normal way, be announced in advance, or carried out on a regular day or at a normal time, since it was necessary to prevent the criminals from getting away. 11. After analyzing the terms and conditions allowed under the applicable law, the State says that the apprehension was made in the circumstances of flagrante delicto, in which the formalities envisaged in the Constitution then in force and the Code of Criminal Procedure could be overlooked. Based on the foregoing, the State affirms that it met the legal requirements for capturing the perpetrators of the crime, as they had warrants issued by the competent authority that authorized them to carry out the raid and search on special days and at exceptional times, since the crimes were in flagrante. 12. The State also notes a proceeding initiated ex officio by the State for alleged torture and mistreatment of the petitioners, which would have been rejected by the Public Prosecution Service (Ministerio Público) in April 2014 for lack of proof, which was reportedly opposed by the Office of the Deputy Minister for Justice and Fundamental Rights. However, the State says that the petitioners were examined by a team of medical examiners, as attested in certificates dated December 18 and 19, 2001. The State notes that, in any event, it ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on November 21, 2006, which would be significant for determining the competence of the Commission in relation to the allegations. 13. It contends that there is nothing to prove or certify the alleged acts of sexual abuse, sexual violence, and violations of the rights of the child. As regards the allegations of incommunicado detention and solitary confinement, the State says that there is nothing to substantiate them and that no complaints were made to the competent authorities. It argues that, in any event, the alleged acts would only constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment if they had been prolonged or unnecessarily used, but not if they had been used to preserve order inside correctional facilities or avoid obstructions in determining the truth. It also affirms that such measures are governed by the law and that their use does not violate the right of publicity, given that the right to defense through counsel affords knowledge of the proceedings. 14. With respect to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the State indicates that the right to a defense was fully observed throughout the proceedings, that each of the accused was afforded a technical defense, that some invoked the right to silence, a procedural guarantee that was respected, and that no unlawful or derivative evidence was adduced. The State also reiterates that the process was not based on statements made by the accused at the time of their detention, but only on documentary evidence, ballistic evidence, witness testimony, material evidence, and a judicial inspection, all of which was legally obtained and corroborated the guilt of those convicted. In relation to the resolution on precautionary measures that ordered the pretrial detention of the petitioners, Bolivia says that its purpose was to ensure that the investigation was not obstructed, bearing in mind the background to the case, and that it was perfectly legal and did not undermine the presumption of innocence. 15. Finally, with respect to the allegations regarding the right to protection of honor and dignity, Bolivia reiterates that the claims lack sufficient evidence to substantiate them and that the media shockwaves and social outcry prompted by the Prosegur case stemmed from the seriousness of the events and the violence and recklessness with which those convicted acted. III. FINDINGS OF FACT 3