detriment of Ms. J., in accordance with paragraphs 166 to 168, 181 to 189, 194 to 210, 215, 217 to 220, 224 to 229, 233 to 248 and 286 to 295 of this Judgment. 4. The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, to dignity and to privacy recognized, respectively, in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) of this instrument and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, owing to the ill-treatment of Ms. J. during her initial arrest, as well as for failure to comply with its obligation to guarantee, by an effective investigation of these facts, the rights embodied in Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, in accordance with paragraphs 313 to 368 of this Judgment. 5. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, because Ms. J. was kept incommunicado while she was detained in the DINCOTE and owing to the failure to separate Ms. J. from inmates who had been convicted while she was detained in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, in accordance with paragraphs 376 to 378 and 380 to 381 of this Judgment. 6. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right to the protection of the home recognized in Article 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in relation to the search conducted of the house on Casimiro Negrón Street, to the detriment of Ms. J., in accordance with paragraphs 146 and 147 of this Judgment. 7. The State is not responsible for the violation of the right of defense, to the detriment of Ms. J., owing to the legal restrictions relating to the means and opportunities to argue preliminary issues, or for the alleged coercion imposed on Ms. J. when detained so that she would presumably incriminate herself, in accordance with paragraphs 211 to 214 and 372 to 374 of this Judgment. 8. The State is not responsible for the violation of the principle of non bis in idem, recognized in Article 8(4) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Ms. J., in accordance with paragraphs 256 to 273 of this Judgment. 9. The State is not responsible for the violation of the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, recognized in Article 9 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Ms. J., in accordance with paragraphs 277 to 284 and 295 of this Judgment. 10. It is not in order to make a ruling on the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention owing to the search of the building on Las Esmeraldas Street; on the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, owing to the presentation and assessment of the evidence in the ongoing criminal proceedings against Ms. J., or on the alleged violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, owing to the supposed factual impossibility of filing applications for habeas corpus before August 1992, in accordance with paragraphs 145, 249 to 251, 297 and 172 of this Judgment. 11. It is not in order to make a ruling on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention with regard to the failure to investigate the ill-treatment suffered by Ms. J., on the occasion of her initial arrest, in accordance with paragraph 368 of this Judgment. 12. The Court does not have any evidence to conclude that the offense of apology of terrorism for which Ms. J. is being tried, has prescribed so that her trial for this offense constitutes a violation of the principle of legality, in accordance with paragraph 296 of this Judgment. 125