“entered his home alone.”61 The execution of the court search warrant was therefore postponed to a later date because the purpose of the raid was to find him in flagrante delicto, which would not have occurred on the initial date established for the procedure. 50. The police authorities reported that at 9:45 p.m. on January 19, 2003,62 Scot Cochran had entered his residence accompanied by a minor. Therefore, the pertinent arrangements were immediately made to conduct a raid, and this finally took place in the early morning hours of January 20, 2003.63 51. The judge ordered entry at 10:50 p.m. on January 19, 2003,64 and according to the record of the raid, the procedure ended at 4:25 a.m. on January 20, 2003.65 The record of the raid indicates that the sexual crimes prosecutor, a public defender, and officials from the Judicial Investigation Department were present.66 The record indicates that, when they entered Scot Cochran’s residence, they found him “semi-naked” with a 16-year-old who was discovered “hidden” in the same room.67 Scot Cochran was detained at the request of the Public Prosecution Service and taken to the cells of the Second Judicial Circuit at 5:00 a.m. on January 20, 2003.68 The police proceeded to arrest the petitioner and seized various documents and audiovisual material presumably related to the crimes that were being investigated. 52. On January 20, 2003, following Scot Cochran’s arrest and transfer to the judicial facilities, a preliminary statement was taken at the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes of the Public Prosecution Service. The statement was supposed to be taken at 11:00 a.m.; however, it was postponed in order to contact the lawyer appointed by Scot Cochran and to ensure the presence of a translator; it resumed at 3:10 p.m.69 During this procedure, the alleged victim was questioned to establish his identity and, in the presence of his lawyer and a translator, he was informed of the offenses with which he was charged. However, Scot Cochran refused to provide a statement; therefore, only his personal data was noted. 53. At the request of the Public Prosecution Service, on the afternoon of January 20, 2003, the Special Criminal Court of San José ordered the pre-trial detention of Scot Cochran on charges of criminal responsibility for the crimes of “paid sexual relations with [a minor and] supplying drugs.”70 Pre-trial detention was required to ensure that the adversarial proceedings could take place and that their success was not altered by 61 Ruling of the Criminal Court of San José at 8:00 p.m. on January 17, 2003, adding the search warrant (evidence file, folio 7296) Cf. Expansion of the report on the raid of Scot Cochran’s residence dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 7305). 62 63 Cf. Record of the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7304). Cf. Expansion of the report on the raid of Scot Cochran’s residence dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 7306). 64 65 Cf. Record of the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7304). 66 Cf. Record of the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7301). 67 Cf. Record of the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7301). Cf. Expansion of the report on the raid of Scot Cochran’s residence dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 7307). 68 69 Cf. Record of preliminary statement before the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes and Domestic Violence of the Public Prosecution Service in San José dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 927). 70 Ruling of the Criminal Court of San José, at 6:55 p.m. on January 20, 2003, ordering six-months pretrial detention for Scot Cochran (evidence file, folios 42 to 49). 15