damage in that everyone views you with disdain, speaks bad about you, criticizes you, and says bad things about you.” 142 186. The Court is clear that the conditions of incommunicado and isolation in which the victims were deprived of their liberty under arraigo, which were acknowledged by the State, transcend the circumstances of the specific case and are usually found in the contexts in which arraigo is applied. As was indicated in the experts’ statements and in the reports of different international human rights organizations, the application of arraigo carries with it a series of harmful effects to human rights that extend beyond the rights to personal liberty and to the presumption of innocence analyzed in a previous chapter (supra paras. 156 and 157) and that includes situations intrinsically linked with harm to the personal integrity of persons held under arraigo. Those harms to the right to personal integrity are usually presented under the form of measures of incommunicado, of isolation, of tortures or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In this scenario, persons held under arraigo usually find themselves in a situation of complete vulnerability and defenselessness with regard to the harm to their physical and psychological integrity. This is, precisely, what occurred in this specific case. 187. In view of the above and the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court finds that in the case sub examine there was also a violation of Article 5, in relation to its obligation of respect established in Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López. B.2. The right to privacy of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López a) The search of the vehicle in which the victims were traveling 188. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the search of the vehicle in which the victims were traveling was an infringement of their right to privacy, set forth in Article 11(2) of the Convention, which provides that “(n)o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his privacy, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 189. The Court has stipulated, with regard to Article 11, that although this provision is entitled “Protection of honor and dignity” in the Spanish version of the Convention, [Right to Privacy in the English version] its content includes, inter alia, the protection of privacy. 143 The Court has held that the sphere of personal and family privacy protected by this article is characterized by being exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary invasions or interferences by third parties or public authorities. Therefore, the Court considers that the possessions that persons are carrying when they are in a public place, even when those persons are in a car, represent belongings that, similar to those that are to be found in their home, are included within the sphere of protection of the right to privacy. Therefore, they may not be subjected to arbitrary interference by third parties or the authorities. 144 The European Court of Human Rights, likewise, has indicated with respect to the searches and their relationship with the right to privacy that that “the use of the coercive powers conferred by the legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounts to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life.” 145 142 Affidavit of Gerardo Tzompaxtle (evidence file, f. 31093). Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, paras. 192 and 193 and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411 para.102. 143 144 Cf. Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina, supra, para. 102. 145 Cf. ECHR. Case of Gillan and Quinton v. Great Britain, Judgment of June 28, 2010, Application No. 4150/05, paras. 62 to 65. 43