64. In addition, it is essential to examine the subjective characteristics of the individual who has expresses his consent, such as age, level of education, and intellectual capacity among other conditions that could possibly interfere in his free acquiescence. 65. Lastly, free consent cannot be conditioned to any peripheral circumstance, as when the authority makes “promises” if the individual authorizes the house raid. 66. In light of the preceding considerations and arguments, we conclude that any intervention in the fundamental right of the inviolability of the home, which encompasses many other intrinsic rights to intimacy and privacy, should be limited by the observance of two basic precepts: the principles of legal reserve and of proportionality, which together legitimize a specific coercive measure taken by the police authorities. 67. In light of the importance and magnitude of this issue, specific parameters should be determined for authorizing the entry of state agents into private homes, especially in situations of flagrante delicto. The authorities must be guided by the fact that there is a need to carefully examine the situation of flagrante delicto a posteriori to ensure that the occurrence of a crime within the residence was verified before the raid took place. Also, in relation to the resident’s consent to the entry into his home of state agents, it is mandatory that this consent be spontaneous and free of coercion. 68. The foregoing is aimed at regulating and establishing standards for the actions of public agents related to house raids, seeking to put an end to abuses, particularly those that occur during police operations, and also to regulate the lawful entry into a private home to ensure that measures are not taken that violate fundamental human rights, especially those of women and children. Conclusion 69. The judgment delivered by the Court in the instant case makes an in-depth examination of the international responsibility of the State in light of the Convention for the violations committed in the context of the criminal prosecution of the victims. 70. The purpose of this opinion has been to show that nighttime house raids are incompatible with the Convention and with this Court’s standards, and are admissible only in absolutely exceptional situations and, above all, when they are clearly and distinctly established in the Constitution or the law. Furthermore, they require enhanced substantiation justifying why the measure cannot be conducted during the daytime. In other words, States should not consider that nighttime raids are routine criminal prosecution procedures, freely available to operators of justice; rather, they are instruments that constitute one of the most serious interventions in the sphere of individual rights. Therefore, nighttime raids can only be justified by strict observance of the requirements of both lawfulness and proportionality in all their dimensions. Nancy Hernández López Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Registrar 16