Commission indicated that both “individual”597and “communal”598 property of the Cacarica communities had been harmed for two main reasons: (a) owing to the destruction599 and ransacking600 that took place during Operation “Cacarica,” and (b) owing to the damage produced by the lack of use, particularly of the communal lands. 352. The Court notes that the destruction of the homes of the inhabitants of the communities of the Cacarica River basin, in addition to constituting a major financial loss, resulted in the inhabitants losing their basic means of subsistence, which means that the violation of the right to property in this case was particularly serious. Thus, the Colombian Constitutional Court has established that “property should be considered a fundamental right, provided that it is related to the maintenance of material conditions of existence, and that disregarding it affects equality and the possibility of leading a decent life.”601 353. Lastly, the Court notes that although the Commission and the representatives argued the violation of the right to private property owing to the destruction caused during the paramilitary incursions, as well as to the damage produced by the disuse of this property and the loss of use of it, “to the detriment of the members of the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica associated in CAVIDA and the women heads of household who live in Turbo,” it is also true that they did not individualize the victims or identify the property that had been seized from each of the displaced persons or communities. However, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the context in which the events occurred, and the fact that the State has not contested the legal considerations related to this violation of that right, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the acts related to the paramilitary incursions that caused or supported the violation of the right to collective property contain in Article 21 of the Convention, to the detriment of the members of the displaced communities of the Cacarica.602 597 The representatives indicated that the Afro-Colombian victims in this case were owners of material goods represented by: (a) Houses: the family home, generally made of wood with a zinc roof, and another where, among other elements, instruments for planting and work tools were kept”; (b) the homes had beds, mattresses, radio, tables and chairs, clothes, bed linen and netting to avoid mosquitos at night, cooking utensils, including pots and pans, dishes, buckets, glasses, cutlery, grinder, pestle and mortar, pressure cooker”; (c) “Boat: wooden dug-out made by people in the community for mobilization by river, to transport crops and to exchange products with other communities”; (d) “Crops: rice, corn, plantain, cacao, fruit trees, such as mango, coco palm, palmheart, avocado pear, lime, orange, zapote, pineapple, mandarine orange (each family group had these trees)”; (e) “Work tools such as machetes, rake, spade, hoe, hammer, axe, chain saw and saw,” and (f) “Domestic animals that they used for their daily work and for their subsistence, such as hens, pigs, dogs, cats, working animals, ducks, turkeys, horses, and others.” 598 Among this property, the representatives indicated that the most important were: (a) the school; (b) the heatlth center; (c) the women’s store; (d) the meeting place; (e) the football pitch; (f) the power plant; (g) the working animals, and (h) a collective vehicle. 599 As observed in the Chapter on facts, the paramilitary units launched grenades at the roofs of the houses.Cf. Indictment in the hearing on the partial indictment of Diego Luis Hinestroza Moreno, Medellin Justice and Peace Courts, May 30, 2008 (minutes 23:43 to 24:15) (evidence file, folio 1472). See also: Testimony of Luis Aristarco Hinestrosa (step-brother of Marino Lopez) of April 13, 2007, before the National Human Rights Unit (evidence file, folio 17338), and Testimony of J.V.R. on March 3, 2007, before the National Human Rights Unit in proceeding No. 2332 (evidence file, folio 17333). 600 As observed in the Chapter on Facts, the paramilitary units ransacked the homes of the inhabitants of Cacarica. Cf. Sworn statement for non-trial purposes No. 8522 of April 3, 2009, of witness Bernardo Vivas Mosquera before the 76th Notary’s Office (evidence file, folio 1541). See also: Preliminary arguments presented before the Prosecutor General in proceedings 5767, by L.J.M., legal representative of Father J.G., requesting the indictment of Rito Alejo del Rio Rojas for crimes against humanity (evidence file, folio 1286). William Manuel Soto Salcedo, Minute by minute of the Collective voluntary confessions of the candidates of the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc concerning Operation Genesis – Cacarica, Medellín, April 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 19179). 601 Cf. Colombian Constitutional Court. Judgment No. T-506/92 of August 21, 1992; judgment cited in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 181. 602 The determination of the injured party will be made in Chapter X on reparations. 115