83 176. In this case, the Court considers that it has been proved (supra para. 125(84)) that, during the incursion in El Aro, initiating at the start of their passage through the municipality of Puerto Validvia, the paramilitary group stole approximately 800 to 1,200 head of livestock from the farms along the way. It has also been proved, and acknowledged by the State (supra para. 19), that members of the Army were aware of the theft and transfer of the El Aro livestock and even imposed a curfew on the population so that the livestock could be taken away using the public highway, and that some soldiers benefited from the theft. In addition, the public authorities failed to assist the civilian population during the theft and transfer of the livestock in that district. 177. The Court also considers that it has been proved and the State has acknowledged (supra para. 19) that, before leaving El Aro, the paramilitary group destroyed and set fire to the majority of the houses in the urban center – only a chapel and eight homes were saved – (supra para. 125(79)), in order to terrorize the population and cause its displacement. 178. The Court finds it opportune to underscore the particular gravity of the theft of the livestock of the inhabitants of El Aro and the surrounding areas. As the Commission and the representatives have emphasized, from the characteristics of the district and the daily activities of the inhabitants, it is clear that there was a close relationship between the latter and their livestock, because their main means of subsistence was cultivating the land and raising livestock. Indeed, the damage suffered by those who lost their livestock, from which they earned their living, is especially severe. Over and above the loss of their main source of income and food, the way in which the livestock was stolen, with the explicit and implicit collaboration of members of the Army, increased the villagers’ feelings of impotence and vulnerability. 179. When examining the scope of the said Article 21 of the Convention in this case, the Court considers it useful and appropriate, in keeping with Article 29 thereof, to use international treaties other than the American Convention, such as Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts, to interpret its provisions in accordance with the evolution of the inter-American system, taking into account the corresponding developments in international humanitarian law. Colombia ratified the Geneva Conventions on November 8, 1961. On August 14, 1995, it acceded to the provisions of the Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. 180. It has been proved, and the State has acknowledged, that the paramilitary incursion in El Aro, and also the theft of the livestock, happened with the acquiescence or tolerance of members of the Colombian Army, in the context of the internal armed conflict (supra paras. 63 and 64). In this regard, the Court observes that Articles 13 (Protection of the civilian population) and 14 (Protection of the objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population) of Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions prohibit, respectively, “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population,” and also “to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” 181. The Court also wishes to record that the right to property is a human right whose violation in this case is particularly serious. In this regard, the Colombian