nature and duration of the family separation, and is therefore unable to rule in this regard. This impossibility to rule owing to insufficient evidence includes the circumstances surrounding Nené Fils-Aimé, regarding whom it has not been proved that he was expelled, or the circumstances of the hypothetical family separation. 422. Regarding the separation of Rafaelito Pérez Charles from María Esthel Matos Medina and from Jairo Pérez Medina and Gimena Pérez Medina, the Court recalls that the family relationship allegedly connecting the former with the other three persons has not been proved; moreover, the latter are not considered presumed victims (supra para. 95). In addition, the Court notes that the representatives failed to explain how the separation of Rafaelito Pérez Charles for a period of one week at the time of the facts would have affected the supposed family ties of Mr. Pérez Charles with these other persons. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged violation of the right to protection of the family to the detriment of Mr. Pérez Charles. B.2. Interference in the family home (Article 11(2)) 423. The Court observes that the representatives argued that the expulsion of the presumed victims constituted an unlawful and arbitrary interference in their right to privacy, protection by Article 11(2) of the American Convention. The Commission did not allege the violation of Article 11 of the Convention and the State did not make a specific comment in this regard. However, the Court reiterates that “the presumed victims or their representatives may cite rights other than those included by the Commission, based on the facts presented by the latter” (supra para. 227). 424. The Court recalls that Article 11 of the American Convention, entitled “Right to Privacy,” requires the State to protect the individual from arbitrary acts by State entities that affect private and family life. It prohibits any arbitrary or abusive interference in the private life of the individual, specifying different spheres of this, such as the private life of the family. In this regard, the Court has affirmed that the sphere of privacy is characterized by being free and immune from abusive or arbitrary interference or invasion by third parties or by the public authorities. 474 In addition, the Court has indicated that, “under Article 11(2) of the Convention, everyone has the right to receive protection against arbitrary and abusive interference in the family, especially children because the family plays an essential role in their development.” 475 425. The Court now finds it pertinent to examine whether, in relation to the State’s actions with regard to the members of the Medina, Jean and Fils-Aimé families who were detained in their homes in order to be expelled, the interference in the home constituted an arbitrary or abusive interference in their private life, in violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention. 426. In this case, State agents went to the homes of the Jean, Medina and Fils-Aimé families without an arrest warrant issued by the court, reasoned and in writing, and without the subsequent deprivation of liberty and expulsion of the victims being part of ordinary immigration proceedings pursuant to domestic law. It should be recalled that, in the case of the Jean family, the officials went to the family home in December 2000, at around 7.30 a.m., beat on the door and forced the members of the family to leave the house and get into a bus. Later, the State officials returned to the house and arrested Mr. 474 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012, para. 142. 475 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. OC-17/02, para. 71, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 106. 135