150 Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, for the reasons described in paragraphs 145 to 153 of this judgment. 6. The State violated, to the detriment of the persons who lost their possessions in El Aro, who are indicated in paragraph 200(a) of this judgment, the Right to Property enshrined in Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 172 to 188 of this judgment. 7. The State violated, to the detriment of the persons whose homes were destroyed in El Aro, who are indicated in paragraph 200(b) of this judgment, the right established in Article 11(2) of the Convention concerning the prohibition of arbitrary or abusive interference in a person’s private life and home, in relation to Articles 21 (Right to Property) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 189 to 199 of this judgment. 8. The State violated, to the detriment of the persons displaced from El Aro and La Granja, who are indicated in paragraphs 225 and 235 of this judgment, the right to freedom of movement and residence, enshrined in Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 204 to 235 of this judgment. 9. The State violated, to the detriment of the children, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Jorge Correa Sánchez, Omar Daniel Pérez Areiza, José Leonel Areiza Posada and Marco Aurelio Areiza Posada, the right to the measures of protection required by their status as minors enshrined in Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, for the reasons described in paragraphs 239 to 248 of this judgment 10. The State violated, to the detriment of the victims executed in El Granja and their next of kin, who are indicated in paragraphs 257 and judgment, the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 (Right Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 252 to 268 of this judgment. Aro and La 265 of this to Humane to Respect 11. The State violated, to the detriment of the persons indicated in paragraphs 269, 270, 276 and 277 of this judgment, the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 6 (Freedom from Slavery), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 11(2) (Right to Privacy), 21 (Right to Property), 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 269 to 277 and 279 of this judgment. 12. The State violated, to the detriment of all the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro, the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, as indicated in paragraphs 278 and 279 of this judgment. 13. The State violated, to the detriment of all the persons whose rights were violated and who were not guaranteed full access to justice, who are indicated in paragraph 344 of this judgment, the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article