violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. 175. The Commission also alleged that the sum of violations resulting from the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and from the proceedings without judicial guarantees also affected their right to mental integrity. It concluded that the State violated Article 5(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with its Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. 176. The Commission also argued that the search of the vehicle in which Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López were traveling negatively affected their right to privacy and it concluded that the State infringed the right established in Article 11(2) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to their detriment. 177. The representatives augmented the Commission’s allegations with “the fact that the detention of the victims was arbitrary increased their vulnerability before the authorities, which added to the precarious conditions of detention of arraigo and the Mexican penitentiary system, and the threats to which they were subjected infringed their right to mental integrity.” With regard to the alleged violation of the right to privacy, they agreed with the Commission’s position and added that the searches of March 31, 2006 of the home of the mother of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and that of the shop that housed the family business violated their right to privacy. They argued that these actions were carried out without a search warrant and were an abuse of power under the law that allows the authorities to investigate crimes since no element of the applicable criminal offenses could be investigated or proved as a result of the documents and publications gathered. 178. The State acknowledged its international responsibility for violating Articles 5(¡) and 11 of the Convention to the detriment of the victims. It specifically referred to its responsibility for the events related to the conditions of isolation and incommunicado to which Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López were subjected during their detention, as well as the detention and search of the vehicle in which they were traveling (supra para. 14). 179. Regarding the alleged violation to the right to privacy due to the search of the home of the mother of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and of the shop that housed the family business, the State claimed that the decision of October 16, 2008 of the Second Central Criminal Court of the Seventh Circuit, which acquitted Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López of the charges brought by the OPP, held that the acts involved in the searches that were the basis for the federal judge to consider proved the crime of terrorism were not legally valid and, therefore, reversed the decision of the domestic court. B. Considerations of the Court 180. The Court recalls that the State acknowledged its responsibility for violating Articles 5 and 11(2) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights contained therein, to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López (supra para. 14). However, there remains the controversy on the alleged infringement of the right to privacy (Article 11(2)) due to the searches, on March 31, 2006, of the home of the mother of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and of the shop that housed the family business. 181. Notwithstanding the above and the State’s acknowledgement, given the nature of the facts of the case and of the violations produced, the Court deems it necessary to refer to some points related to the rights to personal integrity and to privacy and to analyze the alleged violations of the Convention that were not acknowledged by the State regarding the searches of the home of the mother of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and of the shop that housed the family business. Thus, this section will take up those points in the following order: a) the right to personal integrity of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López and b) the right to privacy of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. 41