- 87 - notes that the detention of the eleven women occurred in a context of “numerous arbitrary detentions,” as determined by the SCJN, which indicated the following: During the events in question, it has been proved that numerous arbitrary detentions were executed, which could be explained, although not justified, by the vertiginous nature of the events, especially those that occurred on the blocked highway and surrounding areas, and given the many members and supporters of the Peoples’ Front who took part in the events, and others who, without forming part of that group, were in the village of Atenco. The police, without much consideration or delay, swept in, in what the factual context led them to believe was a case of flagrante delicto, detaining people indiscriminately, without knowing for sure, to begin with, whether those people had taken part in the perpetration of the wrongful acts they were repressing, or what their participation in such acts had been.332 239. Bearing this in mind, and notwithstanding the State’s acknowledgement, the Court finds it pertinent to include some specific considerations on the treaty-based obligations of the States with regard to collective detentions such as those that occurred in this case. In this regard, the Court has recognized that collective detentions could constitute a mechanism to ensure public safety when the State has evidence to prove that the actions of each of the individuals concerned meet the requirements for detention established by its domestic law and that are in keeping with the Convention.333 In other words, evidence must exist to individualize and separate the conduct of each detainee and, also, the detentions must be controlled by the judicial authority. 334 240. This Court has established that, in the case of collective detentions, the State must substantiate and prove, in the specific case, the existence of sufficient evidence to reasonably suppose the criminal conduct of the individual and that the detention is strictly necessary. Therefore, the detention cannot be based on a mere suspicion or personal perception that the detainee is a member of a specific group.335 In particular, in the context of demonstrations or social protests, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has indicated that “[t]he presence of a few people engaging in violence in and around a protest does not authorize police to brand the entire protest nonpeaceful. It does not give the State carte blanche to use force against or carry out indiscriminate arrests.”336 In such cases, violent conduct should not be presumed, and “[a]ssembly organizers should not be held liable for the violent behaviour committed by others. Instead, police have the duty to remove violent individuals from the crowd in order to allow protesters to exercise their basic rights to assemble and express themselves peacefully.” 337 332 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31253 and 31254). Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 92, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 107. 333 Cf. Case of Servellón García. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 92, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 107. 334 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 106, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 353. Similarly, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has said that detention will be arbitrary, “when it is apparent that persons have been deprived of their liberty specifically […] because of their real or suspected membership of a distinct […] group.” UN, General Assembly, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, July 19, 2017, Doc. UN A/HRC/36/37, para. 48. 335 UN, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Report on his mission to Chile, September 30, 2015, UN Doc. A/HRC/32/36/Add.1, para. 43. 336 Cf. UN, General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Effective measures and best practices to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, January 21, 2013, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/28, para. 10. 337