- 88 - 241. In summary, the Court considers that, to avoid arbitrariness in collective detentions, States must: (i) individualize and separate the conducts of each of the persons detained to prove that there are reasonable indications, based on objective information, that the conduct of each detainee meets the requirements for detention established in domestic law in keeping with the Convention; (ii) ensure that the detention is necessary and proportionate to guarantee a purpose permitted by the Convention, such as the general interest, and also (iii) ensure that detentions are subject to judicial control, in addition to the other conditions established in Article 7 of the American Convention. 242. In this case, regarding the requirement to individualize and to separate the conducts, the Court takes note that the SCJN verified that, during the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006, in Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco, “in many cases, individuals who were not taking part in criminal activities were detained,” because the police detained people indiscriminately, presuming that they were all “in flagrante delicto.”338 Similarly, the CNDH noted that “several people [were detained] who had not taken part in the events, or committed the violent acts attributed to them,” and underlined that some people were detained “without any reason or justification and, according to the reasoning of the police, merely because they were at the scene observing what was happening.”339 Particularly, with regard to the eleven women in this case, according to the facts acknowledged by the State, the Court notes that there are no indications that lead to a reasonable presumption of their participation in any misdemeanor or offense; rather, to the contrary, everything would appear to indicate that they were subsumed within a group of individuals who were detained en masse, merely because they were at the scene. 340 243. Regarding the necessity and proportionality of the detentions, the Court underscores that the CNDH concluded that, during the operations of May 3 and 4, “the right to life of at least 207 people who were detained was jeopardized, in addition to those who, without being involved in the said events, owing to being there temporarily or in transit, put themselves in danger of being assaulted.”341 In addition, the facts acknowledged by the State reveal that the detentions of the eleven women victims in this case were not the inevitable result of circumstances beyond the control of the authorities, and necessary to avoid a real risk of serious harm to people or property; rather they were the result of a practice of equating presence on the scene with probable participation in criminal acts. Lastly, the measures taken by the police were not limited to what was strictly necessary and proportionate, because the eleven women in this case were detained in the context of a police operation characterized by a disproportionate use of force, in which they were subjected to sexual violence and torture at the time of their arrests, during their transfers, and on arrival at CEPRESO (supra paras. 75 to 105). In this regard, the Court has 338 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31249, 31253 and 31254). 339 Recommendation No. 38/2009 of the CNDH of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 504 to 506). Thus, for example, Cristina Sánchez Hernández recounted that “[t]he grenadiers were there and we asked them to let us through, that we had nothing to do with the situation and asked for permission to leave, but they said no, that we were fucked because we were already there and we would just have to be sorry; […] the police agents […] did not ask whether or not you were involved, simply “here you are and here you go’ to everyone.” Affidavit made by Cristina Sánchez Hernández on October 31, 2017 (evidence file, folio 37173). She also stated that an agent of the Public Prosecution Service told her that it was not worth trying to explain anything because “it was as if you were in a car and ran over someone who had crossed in front of you, and even though it was not intentional, you were there and were responsible.” Statements and briefs of the eleven victims before the Social Institution (evidence file, folio 32058). Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo recalled that “they did not respect children, dogs or old people, they did not respect anyone.” Statement made by Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo during the public hearing held before the Court. 340 341 CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folio 28529).