139. Regarding these arguments of the Commission and the representatives, the Court will consider: (a) the right to privacy in relation to the alleged interference in various family homes, and (b) the right to property. 1. Interference in the family home 140. The Court has established that the protection of privacy, family life and the home entails the recognition that there is a personal sphere that must be exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary invasion or interference by third parties or the public authorities. In this regard, the home, the family and private life are intrinsically linked, because the home becomes a space in which family life and private life can be led freely.175 141. The Court recalls that international case law has affirmed the authority of international courts to evaluate evidence freely, without having to adopt a rigid determination of the amount required as grounds for a judgment,176 and that it is essential that the jurisdictional organ pay attention to the circumstances of the specific case and take into account the constraints imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural balance of the parties.177 In addition, the Court has established that the use of circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions as grounds for a judgment is legitimate, “provided that conclusions can be inferred from them that are consistent with the facts.”178 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in principle, the burden of proof for the facts on which the arguments are founded corresponds to the plaintiff; however, it has underlined that, contrary to domestic criminal law, in proceedings on human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to provide evidence, when it is the State that controls the means to clarify incidents that took place within its territory.179 142. Luis Alberto Barrios testified before the local authorities that he witnessed the arrival at his home of around 15 police agents and that, at the time, he fled for fear of being assaulted and deprived of his life.180 Orismar Carolina Alzul García testified on several occasions before the domestic investigation bodies and stated that, from her mother’s house, she observed police patrol cars arrive at her home and the removal of possessions by the said agents.181 Additionally, the Children’s Ombudsman advised that there were signs that the door of the home of Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García had been forced, that clothes and other objects had been destroyed, and that part of the house 175 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 98, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 201 Series C No. 215, para. 157. 176 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 127, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 82. 177 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 12, para. 70; and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 59. 178 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 15, para. 130; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 57, para. 102. 179 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 15, para. 135, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 70. 180 Cf. Complaint filed by Luis Alberto Barrios on December 4, 2003, supra note 172, folio 5236. 181 Cf. Complaint filed by Orismar Carolina Alzul García on December 10, 2003, supra note 172, folio 5238; Interview with Orismar Carolina Alzul García on February 21, 2005, supra note 172, folio 5113 and 5114; Record of criminal investigation of February 21, 2005, supra note 172, 5242, and Affidavit made by Orismar Carolina Alzul García, supra note 172, folio 911. 49