Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui Jiménez, Paula Yulimar Uzcátegui Jiménez, Irmely Gabriela Uzcátegui Jiménez and Josianni de Jesús Mora Uzcátegui. B.2. Right to private property 203. In this case, and having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Convention245 and to its case law,246 the Court considers it a fact that the police officers who entered the home of the Uzcátegui family damaged the roof of the house, broke locks on the doors of the house, broke down a door and smashed the windows 247 and that, in addition to damaging the structure of the house, caused damage to objects inside the house.248 204. The Court also finds that, given the circumstances in which the action took place and, in particular, the socioeconomic status and vulnerability of the Uzcátegui family, the damage to their property during the raid had a far greater impact than it would have had for other family groups with other means. In this regard, the Court considers that States must take into account that groups of people living in adverse circumstances and with fewer resources, such as those living in poverty, experience an increase in the extent to which their rights are affected, precisely because of their more vulnerable situation. 205. Furthermore, for the purposes of this specific case, it is public knowledge that such people were frequently subjected to intimidation through the destruction of their goods, homes or personal belongings.249 206. Therefore, the Court finds that in this case, the damage caused to the structure and furniture of the Uzcátegui’s home, had a significant impact on the family’s property and therefore concludes that the State violated the right to property established in 245 Article 21 of the American Convention states: “Right to Property. 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society […]”. 246 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 148 and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 120 to 122. Also see Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6,2008. Series C No. 179, para. 55. 247 Cf. Record of interview with Luis Enrique Uzcátegui on January 18, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5595 and 5596); Record of interview with Julia Chiquinquirá Jiménez Garcia on January 19, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5597 and 5598); Record of interview with Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui Jiménez on January 26, 2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, page 5599), and Record of interview with Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui on August 15, 2005 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5605 and 5606). 248 Cf. Technical Inspection N° 001, carried out by Deputy Inspectors Jose Rodriguez and Richard Marrufo, on January 1,2001 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5591 and 5592), observation that would be consistent with the testimonies of the relatives. The Court notes that this conclusion was reached in the context of the proceeding of reconstruction of facts carried out on April 26, 2011. Report on the Reconstruction of Events N° UCCVDF-AMC-RH-0044-11 of April 26, 2011, by Criminologist Richard Daal (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5638 a 5652). 249 Cf. Annual Report 2002 of the Ombudsman’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, page 35: “In the majority of the complaints received by the Ombudsman’s Office the following common elements were identified: - police officers violently burst into homes or private premises, without presenting a court order, and often cause damage therein. – They violently enter homes or private premises where a criminal is allegedly hiding or where they suspect that a crime is being committed. – They raid homes threatening and intimidating people through physical or verbal abuse, or both.” See also Annual Report 2001 of the Ombudsman’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: “The usual method of violating [the right to the inviolability of the home] is that members of the police and security forces burst into the homes of those affected, without a court order authorizing the procedure. This is part of a pattern of abuse of power which constitutes a violation of those rights. People are frequently subjected to intimidation through verbal and (or) physical abuse, and their belongings are confiscated or destroyed.” Reports cited in the brief of pleadings and Available at http://www.defensoria.gob.ve/dp/index.php/publications/reports-anuales 51