32. The European Court of Human Rights, when examining the issue in the case of Dokukiny v. Russia (2022), in which the father of a 4-year-old child was arrested in her presence, deplored the fact that the police paid no heed to her presence and did not take her interests into consideration. The court underscored that seeing her father being taken away by the police had been hurtful and traumatic. 56 It also emphasized its concern owing to “the absence of any specific guidelines and instructions in respect of planning and carrying out arrests and other police operations in situations involving the presence of children, in order to avoid or minimize their exposure to violent scenes and the risk of their falling victim to physical abuse.” 57 Precisely in this regard, the European Court underlined that, in the planning and carrying out of police operations against adults, the interest of any children present should be taken into consideration. 58 33. All these principles were violated during the operations that took place in the case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia. During the nighttime raids, the children were exposed to scenes of violence against their parents (including scenes of sexual violence). 59 As if the trauma of witnessing this type of violence were not enough, some children also suffered direct physical violence at the hands of state agents. 60 In a video of the operation presented as evidence in this case, the image of a little girl in bed, in her pajamas, being accosted by law enforcement agents is heartbreaking. 61 34. We were shocked by the testimony of one of the victims, who was a minor at the time of the events, in which the two types of violence to which the children were subjected are revealed: I saw my mother bleeding and the dining room table full of blood; I saw my father lying on the floor with blood on his face and the floor full of blood, they put something over his head; the police hit him all the time […]; I began to cry, but silently because I didn’t want them to hit me like they were hitting him. One of the police agents told me that he would stop hitting my father if I told him where money was kept, but I didn’t know […] and the policeman hit me again and again with the butt of his rifle; this went on for half an hour more; then he told me that he would stop hitting my father if I told him where El Camba lived (he was referring to Eladio Cruz) and he took me out of the house in my pajamas and slippers, without asking my parent’s permission; they didn’t let me put on a coat, they didn’t let me take anything from my house; they left me standing in the street in Las Rosas Passage for a long time. 62 35. Therefore, consideration of the special vulnerability of these groups reinforces the understanding of the European Court, in Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria (2014), that the presence of family members at the scene of an arrest was a factor to be taken into consideration in planning and carrying out police operations in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of vulnerable third parties who are not the objective of the arrest warrant, and to consider the special impact on women and children. 63 Thus, having called attention to the solid grounds for the imperative of the inviolability of the home, to the particularly intrusive nature of nighttime house raids, and to the negative effects of such police operations that are especially disproportionate for vulnerable groups, in Part III we will examine the strict conditions under which, exceptionally, nighttime raids can be justified. III.The evaluation of the conformity with the Convention of nighttime raids based on the duties of strict lawfulness and proportionality 56 Ibid., para. 28 57 Ibid., para. 28. 58 In this regard, ECHR. A. v. Russia, 2019, para. 67. 59 As described in the judgment (paras. 187 and 188). 60 Judgment, para. 216. 61 Cf. VHS video of the police operation attached to the evidence file, minute 10:15. 62 Cf. Affidavit made by Alexis Eduardo Valencia Alarcón, evidence file folios 12619 and 12620. 63 ECHR, Gustanovi v. Bulgaria, n. 34529/10, Judgment of October 15, 2013. 8