4. Several State authorities, including the Eighth Investigating Judge for Criminal Matters and Precautionary Measures (Juez Octavo de Instrucción en lo Penal – Cautelar) (hereinafter the “Investigating Judge”) – who was responsible for judicial oversight of the arrest and decided on precautionary measures – and El Alto Second Trial Court (Tribunal de Sentencia Segundo de El Alto) (hereinafter the “Trial Court”) – where they were tried for the crimes with which they were charged – as well as various police officers and prosecutors, were aware of the abuses perpetrated against the alleged victims and their allegations that they were being tortured, yet none of them acted promptly to protect them, prevent their mistreatment from continuing, or investigate the allegations. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners allege that the Bolivian State is responsible for violation of their rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection, and respect for the honor and dignity, recognized at Articles 5, 8, 25, and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in conjunction with the obligations set out in Article 1(1) of said instrument. They also allege that the State violated the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “Convention of Belém do Pará”). 6. As regards the right to humane treatment, they argue that the absolute prohibition of torture, whether physical or psychological, and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a moral imperative that admits no discussion from a utilitarian perspective. That prohibition is today part of international jus cogens and remains in effect even in the most difficult of circumstances and in the investigation of all crimes, however serious they may be. Any use of force that is not strictly necessary in view of the behavior of the person detained is an affront to human dignity. Indeed, use of force and measures such as incommunicado detention and solitary confinement should be exceptional. Furthermore, when faced with the possibility or suspicion that acts have been committed that violate a person's right to humane treatment, the State has the obligation to initiate ex officio an impartial, independent, and thorough investigation as soon as possible and to conduct the appropriate medical examinations at the earliest opportunity, which did not occur in this case. 7. As regards the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, the petitioners claim that they received neither assistance nor effective legal protection at any stage of the criminal proceedings against them. From the outset, their allegations of torture and mistreatment were ignored, which reveals not only that the defense they received was useless in preventing abuse by the police, but also that there was a complete absence of impartiality on the part of the adjudicating entity. In addition, their right to be presumed innocent was violated, given that they were forced to incriminate themselves because their guilt was presumed in advance. They also say that the guarantee of publicity of criminal proceedings was violated during their solitary confinement and incommunicado detention, owing to the lack of access to the judicial proceedings conducted during that period, which were thus inquisitorial and devoid of any legitimacy or legality. In addition, the way in which the Bolivian State acted apparently violated the principle of legality, owing to its failure to provide legal justification for its actions. 8. Finally, the petitioners argue that the repressive practices employed by the police and judicial authorities amounted to gross violations of the petitioners' right to have the honor and dignity respected, given that their dwellings were raided in the pre-dawn hours, violating their homes, private and family lives, and correspondence. The State also encouraged an attack on the honor and reputation of the petitioners by presenting them to the media as criminals, stigmatizing them, and encouraging their condemnation by public opinion. B. The State 9. In this stage, the State reiterated arguments concerning the admissibility of the petition, which are not addressed in this section, as the Commission has already made a decision on them in its Report on Admissibility No. 84/08. As to merits, Bolivia argues that it acted in accordance with its obligation to maintain order, given that the individuals alleging violations of rights in this case were members of an organized criminal group who, because they were highly dangerous, were apprehended using reasonable and necessary force. According to the State, a combination of measures were used aimed at averting the occurrence of criminal conduct that might 2