agents who participated in the raids, who referred to them as “bitches,” 45 among other degrading terms. 46 28. In addition to the generalized verbal attacks, most of the women suffered some type of sexual violence at the time of the nighttime raid of their home, in clear contravention of the international precepts that require their protection against any form of violence or discrimination, including that based on sex, 47 especially when they are in the custody of the State. 48 The statements received by this Court are horrific, indicating an extreme level of violation of the privacy and intimacy of the women, reflected in part in the judgment (paras. 184 to 190). It should be recalled that the Court has underscored the particularly serious and reprehensible nature of rape committed by law enforcement agents against women prisoners, 49 and that this type of violation is never admissible. 50 29. The gender-based violence in this specific case was exacerbated, as described above (see II.b), because it occurred at night, a time when women are most vulnerable. In this regard, the statements received by the Court are appalling. For example, one of the victims recounted that, at the time of the raid on her home, she was wearing pajamas (shorts and a t-shirt), and she begged the police who were arresting her to allow her to put on a pair of trousers. 51 They denied her request and began to insult and humiliate her even more. 52 30. As the Court’s case law has crystallized and as is established in the judgment, 53 the State’s enhanced duty of protection also exists in relation to children, based on the principle of the best interests of the child. This is manifested in the specific context of house raids and searches in which the vulnerability of children is intensified owing to the rupture of the protection of the home and the witnessing of the arrest of adults with whom they have developed trust-based family relationships. With good reason, article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), ratified by Bolivia in 1990, expressly guarantees the protection of children against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family and home. 54 Therefore, States have the strict duty to consider and, insofar as possible, mitigate the risk of a violation of their rights. 31. In particular, in the case of nighttime raids, the police authorities are able to foresee that children will be present on the site of the operation, and should therefore consider the trauma to which they will be exposed when their belief that their home is a place of protection and refuge is called into question. Consequently, it is essential, insofar as possible, to conduct police operations (if they are necessary and lawful) during the day when their impact on children can be mitigated. This obligation is in keeping with the understanding that children are especially vulnerable to different forms of violence and that any state action that may have a negative impact on them requires enhanced protection and diligence. 55 45 For example, affidavit made by Patricia Gallardo Ardúz, (evidence file, folio 12719). For example, one female victim indicated that the police used “profanities” when speaking to her daughters. Statement made during the oral trial by Victoria Gutiérrez de Lulleman (evidence file, folio 9638). 46 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 303. 47 48 Ibid., para. 311. 49 Ibid., para. 311. Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 303. 50 51 Cf. Affidavit made by Patricia Gallardo Ardúz (evidence file, folio 12719). 52 Ibid. 53 Judgment, paras. 214 and 215. 54 UNICEF. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Cf. ECHR, Dokukiny v Russia, n. 1223/12, Judgment of May 24, 2022. Similarly, ECHR. A. v. Russia, n. 37735/09, Judgment of November 12, 2019, para. 67. 55 7