109 the alleged attacks against the property of Globovisión would have been committed by undetermined individuals, in an isolated way. Finally, the State alleged that the property that was allegedly damaged or impounded would be the property of a legal entity, that is, Globovisión, considering that the terms of the Globovisión are clear inasmuch as the protected interests are those of human beings, under Article 1.2 therein. 399. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention and pursuant to the case-law developed by this Tribunal, the concept of property is a broad one and comprises, among other aspects, the use and enjoyment of “property”, defined as those material objects which are susceptible of being possessed, as well as any rights which may be part of a person’s assets353. The right to property is not an absolute one and it may be restricted to the cases and the forms established by law354. In fact, the Court has considered in previous cases that, although the figure of legal entities has not been expressly recognized by the American Convention, as it is in Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, this does not mean that, in specific circumstances, an individual may not resort to the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights to enforce his fundamental rights, even when they are encompassed in a legal figure or fiction created by the same system of law. 400. However, it is worth making a distinction in order to identify which situations could be examined by this Court within the framework of the American Convention. In this respect, this Court has already examined the possible violation of the rights of individuals when they are shareholders355. In such cases, the Court has made a distinction between the rights of a company’s shareholders from those of the company itself, indicating that domestic legislation grants shareholders specific direct rights, such as receiving the agreed dividends, attending and voting at general meetings and receiving part of the assets of the company when selling their shares, among others356. 401. In this case, it is an undisputed fact in this proceeding that Mr.Alberto Federico Ravell and Guillermo Zuloaga are shareholders of the company UNITEL de Venezuela C.A., which, at the same time, owns the television station Globovisión and the evidence tendered suggest that they were shareholders of, at least partially, the television station of Globovisión at the moment of the alleged facts357. 353 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú, supra note 59, para. 122; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua, supra note 36, para. 144; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 28, para. 55; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 29, para. 174; Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile, supra note 63; para. 102; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C, Nº 125, para. 137; and Case of the Moiwana Community V. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C, Nº 124, para. 129. Cf., Case of the “Five Pensioners" V. Perú, supra note 120, para. 102. 354 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú, supra note 59, para. 128; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 28, para. 60 and 61; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 29, para. 174. 355 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú, supra note 59, para. 123, 125, 138 and 156. 356 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú, supra note 59, para. 127; and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. V. Ecuador, supra note 29, para. 181. Cf., Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 36, para. 47. 357 The representatives presented the Articles of incorporation and the minutes of the shareholders' meeting of Unitel de Venezuela C.A., Corpomedios GV Inversiones, C.A and Globovisión Tele, C.A., in order to prove the participation of Mr. Ravell and Zuloaga as shareholders of Globovisión (records of evidence, volume XIV, pages 4148 and subs.) It spring from the documents furnished that the company Corpomedios GV Inversiones C.A. holds 100% of the shares of the company Globovisión Tele C.A (according to the Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of Globovisión Tele, C.A, of August 22, 2001; records of evidence, volume XIV, pages 4187 and subs). In turn, the company Corpomedios GV holds 60% of the shares in the company Unitel de Venezuela C.A., Half of 40% of the remaining shares belong to Sociedad Mercantil Sindicato Avila, C.A and the