to personal liberty, such as the right to privacy and to family life.377 Nevertheless, this restriction of rights – the result of the deprivation of liberty or a collateral effect – must be limited strictly, because any restriction of a human right can only be justified in international law when it is necessary in a democratic society.378 Although the Court has also stated that the restriction of the right to personal integrity, among others, is not justified based on the deprivation of liberty and is prohibited by international law,379 an examination of the judgments in the cases heard by this Court in this regard reveals that these were cases in which the conditions of the deprivation of liberty were cruel, inhuman or degrading, and even caused death or injuries, often serious, to a large number of prisoners.380 391. In this case, it has not been alleged, nor does it appear in the case file, that the presumed victims were subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to abuse or differentiated treatment that harmed them. The allegations in relation to the violations of personal integrity refer to what the Court has called a collateral effect of the situation of deprivation of liberty.381 392. Between 2002 and 2007, while they were being prosecuted for terrorist offenses, Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Patricio and Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles went on hunger strike several times.382 It could be considered that these hunger strikes could have been undertaken in order to protest against inhuman prison conditions and as a measure to get these changed. However, the case file shows that these hunger strikes had different motives related to the detention and prosecution of the presumed victims and to the fact that the Counter-terrorism Act had been applied to them.383 They were undertaken in order to be heard by the authorities, to denounce the irregularities in their judicial proceedings and to demand their release or, otherwise, to obtain prison benefits, as well 377 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 108, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 209. 378 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 154. Similarly, Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 113, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 209. 379 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 155, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 84. 380 Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 170, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, para. 60. 381 209. Cf. Case of the “Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, para. 154, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 382 Cf. Note 09.01.03.55/02 of August 7, 2002, signed by the Head of the Traiguén Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the Head of the Genchi Security Department, Santiago; Note 09.01.01.229/02 of February 16, 2002, signed by the Head of the Angol Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the judge of the Traiguén Guarantees Court; Note 09.01.03.23/02 of August 20, 2002, signed by the Head of the Traiguén Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the Head of the Genchi Security Department, Santiago; Note 09.01.01.1384/03 of August 21, 2003, signed by the Head of the Angol Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the judge of the Collipulli Court with combined jurisdiction (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 4391, 4438, 4541 and 9131); written statement made on May 27, 2013, by presumed victim Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, and affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by presumed victim José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñá) (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 191 and 207), and statement made by presumed victim Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 383 Cf. Written statement made on May 27, 2013, by presumed victim Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 652); affidavit prepared on May 14, 2013, by presumed victim Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 191), and Note No. 06 of October 13, 2003, signed by the Head of the Victoria Prison Sentences Center addressed to the Head of the Security Department, Chilean Prison Service (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folio 9196). 131