acquired, as well as any right that may form part of an individual’s personal wealth.248 This concept comprises all movable and immovable property, tangible or intangible assets, and any other intangible object that may have a value.249 In addition, under Article 21 of the American Convention, the Court has protected acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into an individual’s personal wealth.250 In addition, Articles 13 (Protection of the civilian population) and 14 (Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population) of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions prohibit, respectively, “[a]cts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population,” as well as “to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” 180. The right to property is a human right and, in this case, its violation is especially serious and significant, not only because of the loss of tangible assets, but also because of the loss of the most basic living conditions and of every social reference point of the people who lived in these villages. As expert witness María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz underscored, “[n]ot only was the civilian population exterminated, but also the whole symbolic and social tissue. They destroyed homes and significant objects. They stripped the people of their clothes, the children’s toys, and their family photographs; they removed and destroyed everything that was important to them. They killed or took the animals; they all recount that they took the cows, the hens; they took my cows, they killed two bulls: a loss of both material and affective significance in the peasant universe. Scorched earth is a type of violation and stigmatization by soldiers, created by the perpetrators. The scale of the horror perpetrated there was aimed at annihilating the area, with all its inhabitants, to vacate the territory, to expel them from the area.”251 Furthermore, “[i]t was a rationale of extermination, of total destruction of the social mechanisms. […] The massacre disintegrated the collective identity, by leaving a social vacuum where the community had once carried out its rituals, its affective exchanges, the context and the framework in which they knew they were part of a community.”252 181. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to property recognized in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the surviving victims. 182. In view of the fact that the representatives alleged the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention based on the same facts, the Court reiterates is case law regarding the possibility for the presumed victims or their representatives to invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s merits report, provided that they relate to the facts contained in this document. 253 The Court also recalls that Article 11(2) of the Convention recognizes that there is a sphere of privacy that must remain exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary invasion or aggression by third parties or the public authorities. Thus, the home and private and family life are intrinsically related, because the home becomes a space in which private and family life can be lived freely.254 The Court considers that the destruction and arson by the Armed Forces of the 248 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 122, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 220 249 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and costs, para. 122, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 148. 250 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 102, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina, para. 220. 251 Expert opinion on psychosocial impacts and recommendations for reparations in the case of “The Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places” provided by María Sol Yáñez De La Cruz, undated (evidence file, tome XVIII, annex 2 to the final written arguments of the representatives, folios 10520 to 10521). 252 Expert opinion on psychosocial impacts and recommendations for reparations in the case of “The Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places” provided by María Sol Yáñez De La Cruz, undated (evidence file, tome XVIII, annex 2 to the final written arguments of the representatives, folio 10525). 253 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 32, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 47. 254 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 140. 58