87 196. For example, the Court deems it pertinent to indicate that in Ayder v. Turkey,190 the European Court established that, in circumstances similar to the facts of the instant case, the deliberate destruction of homes and other properties by the Turkish armed forces, which meant that the victims were obliged to abandon their village, constituted a particularly grave and unjustified interference in private and family life, and in the peaceful use and enjoyment of their possessions. Likewise, in Bilgin v. Turkey,191 the European Court declared that the right to property had been violated together with the right to respect for private and family life and the home, owing to the fire provoked by the Turkish security forces that destroyed the home and possessions of the victim, who, deprived of his livelihood, was forced to displace. Similarly, in Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey,192 the European Court recognized that the deliberate destruction by the Turkish Army’s security forces of the property of the victims, who were obliged to abandon their place of residence, constituted a violation of the right to property as well as an abusive and arbitrary interference in their private lives and home.193 197. In this case, recognizing the progress made on this issue in international human rights law, and based on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the destruction by the paramilitary group, with the collaboration of the Colombian Army, of the homes of the inhabitants of El Aro, and also of the possessions that were inside the homes, in addition to being a violation of the right to the use and enjoyment of property, constitutes a grave, unjustified and abusive interference in their private life and home. The alleged victims, who lost their homes, also lost the place where their private life took place. Consequently, the Court finds that the Colombian State failed to comply with the prohibition to interfere arbitrarily and abusively in private life and home. 198. To determine the victims in this case in relation to the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention, the Court has taken into account the criteria indicated above when determining the alleged victims of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, provided that those criteria refer to the identification of those who lost their homes in El Aro. The Court considers that Bernardo María Jiménez Lópera, Libardo Mendoza, Luis Humberto Mendoza Arroyave and Omar Alfredo Torres Jaramillo are the victims of the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention based on an additional factor applicable only to them. They were included in the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in relation to the violation of Article 21 of the Convention for the loss of their homes. economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 190 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Ayder et al v. Turkey, No. 23656/94, Judgment of 8 January 2004, para. 119. 191 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Bilgin v. Turkey, No. 23819/94, Judgment of 16 November 2000, para. 108. 192 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Selçuk v. Turkey, No. 23184/94, Judgment of 24 April 1998, para. 86. 193 Likewise, see also Eur.C.H.R., Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, Judgment of 22 December 2005; Eur.C.H.R., Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, Judgment of 31 October 2003; Eur.C.H.R., Yöyler v. Turkey, no. 26973/95, Judgment of 10 May 2001; Eur.C.H.R., Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001; and Eur.C.H.R., Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, Judgment of 16 September 1996.