- 26 - police advanced along the public highway and liberated the blockade at the entrance to Acuexcómac without the protestors opposing resistance. 84 In the case of the blockade at San Salvador Atenco, there was a confrontation between the protestors and the police that ended with the retreat of the protestors and the unblocking of the Texcoco-Lechería highway at around 7.10 a.m.85 The police agents who had been retained were liberated or escaped during the day. 86 69. Police were deployed in the main square of San Salvador Atenco, where they arrested some individuals and took control of the installations of the municipal auditorium and ejidal offices.87 Also, after taking control of the main square of San Salvador Atenco, members of the Federal Preventive Police and of the state Security Agency deployed on various streets of the town where they arrested several people. Also, during the operation, members of both the state Security Agency and the Federal Preventive Police entered private homes, without a court order, with the justification that they were pursuing individuals in flagrante delicto. In this regard, 72 of the 106 individuals detained on May 4, 2006, stated that they had been arrested inside private homes.88 According to the National Human Rights Commission, “several arrests were made when the protestors were forced to retreat with tear gas; this possibly caused confusion and allowed the members of the state Security Agency and the Federal Preventive Police to detain several people who had not taken part in the events or committed the violent acts of which they were accused.”89 Those detained on May 4, 2006, were taken, first, on foot and, then, in pick-ups (some of them private vehicles and others police vehicles) to the buses in which they were transferred to the CEPRESO.90 A.5 Reports of police abuse during the operations on May 3 and 4, 2006, in Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco, state of Mexico 70. Most of the people detained during the operations on May 3 and 4, 2006, reported police abuse including physical assault, death threats, kicks, blows with clubs, and insults, and having their possessions taken, either during the confrontations, or on being arrested, or in the offices of the Federal Preventive Police or during their transfer to, or entry into, the Office of the Texcoco Assistant Attorney General and/or the CEPRESO.91 Some individuals were referred to a hospital 84 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30735). 85 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30735 and 30736). According to the SCJN, on May 4, 2006, the police who had been retained the previous day were released. However, it stressed that “the information gathered during the inquiry reveals that this release was not executed by the police agents who intervened in the operation; nevertheless, the time and manner of their release reveal that the police operations influenced and promoted the conditions for those who had been retained to recover their freedom.” Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30743 a 30746). 86 87 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30739). Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30742 and 30743), and CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 42 and 43, 46 to 49 (evidence file, folios 28557, 28558, 28561 to 28564). 88 89 CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 42 and 43, 46 to 49 (evidence file, folio 28557). 90 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30741). SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30693, 30755 to 30759, 30706, 30764, 30720 and 30721), and CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 44 to 46 and 50 to 60 (evidence file, folios 28559 to 28569 and 28565 to 2875). 91