167. The Court recalls that, in this case, in December 1997, a civil suit for damages was filed against Messrs. Mémoli, in which, after more than 15 years, the first instance decision has not yet been delivered (supra paras. 95 to 108). Furthermore, prior to the opening of this proceeding, a precautionary measure of an injunction against the sale or encumbrance of property had been decreed against Messrs. Mémoli in order to ensure any eventual payment that might result from the civil proceeding, so that this measure has been in force for over 17 years (supra paras. 109 to 112). 168. Based on these facts and on the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, in this case the Court will analyze whether the civil proceeding for damages filed against the presumed victims met the requirement of a reasonable time in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Convention, and whether the general injunction on property decreed in relation to that proceeding constituted a violation of the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention. 169. Regarding the right to property, the Court reiterates that the representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those alleged by the Commission (supra para. 153). 170. The Court also recalls that, in its case law, it has developed a broad concept of property, which covers, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of property defined as goods that can be acquired, as well as any right that may form part of an individual’s capital wealth. This concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other immaterial object that may have a value. 277 In addition, it is necessary to repeat that the right to property is not absolute and, in this sense, it may be subject to restrictions and limitations, 278 provided that these are carried out using the appropriate legal mechanisms and in accordance with the parameters established in the said Article 21. 279 This Court has established that, when examining a possible violation of the right to property, it should not restrict itself to merely examining whether a formal expropriation or dispossession occurred, but also verify, over and above appearances, the real situation behind the situation denounced. 280 171. Regarding the alleged violation of a reasonable time in the civil proceeding, the Court has indicated that all the organs that exercise functions of a jurisdictional nature, whether criminal or not, have the obligation to take decisions based on full respect for the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention. 281 Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that, in this case, contrary to others analyzed by the Court, the State is not a party to the judicial proceedings and the presumed victims are the respondents and not the complainants in it; consequently in this chapter, the Court will examine the actions of the State in the exercise of its jurisdictional function within a reasonable time, in the context of the dispute between two individuals that was submitted to its consideration. In this regard, in its case law, the Court has established that the right of access to justice must ensure the determination of the rights of the individual within a reasonable time. In principle, the 277 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 122, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 269. 278 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para.128, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, supra, para. 220. 279 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 54, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, supra, para. 220. 280 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 124. 281 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 104, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra, para. 111. 63