105 of his brother. Any pecuniary compensation in his favor will be distributed in accordance with paragraph 363 of this judgment. c) Concerning the persons detained and obliged to herd livestock 269. The Court considers that the persons who were detained and obliged to herd livestock under threat of death – a situation examined in the chapter on the violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (supra paras. 145 to 168) – suffered fear and degrading treatment. Consequently, the State has violated Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of these persons. On this basis, the Court considers that the victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 thereof, are the persons indicated in Appendix II of this judgment, who have been identified as victims of the violation of this article. d) Concerning the persons who lost their possessions 270. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the persons who lost their possessions in El Aro, the Court considers that the State failed to respect the physical and moral integrity of these persons, who suffered immense emotional anguish owing to the loss of their belongings in a context of extreme violence, which has been examined in the chapter on the violation of Article 21 of the Convention (supra paras. 172 to 200). On this basis, the Court considers that the victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 21 thereof, are the persons indicated in Appendix III of this judgment, who have been identified as victims of the violation of Articles 5 and 21 of the Convention. 271. However, the Court considers that, since they lost their homes and their possessions, the persons whose houses were destroyed and who were forced to displace endured particularly severe suffering that merits further attention. 272. In this judgment, the Court has established that the paramilitary group, with the acquiescence and tolerance of State officials (supra paras. 63 and 64), destroyed and set fire to most of the houses in El Aro, which resulted in the displacement of its inhabitants. These acts of violence, particularly the destruction of the houses, were designed to terrorize the population and force the families to displace from El Aro. Those who lost their homes in the fires set by the paramilitary group and who were therefore forced to displace lost all possibility of returning to their homes, because these ceased to exist. The Court finds that these facts have aggravated the situation of these persons vis-à-vis other people who were forced to displace, but whose homes were not destroyed. 273. In similar cases, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that such facts can be considered inhuman treatment, which constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.228 In Ayder v. Turkey,229 the European Court considered that it constituted inhuman treatment that the homes 228 Article 3 ECHR (Prohibition of Torture) establishes: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. “ 229 and 110. Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Ayder et al v. Turkey, No. 23656/94, Judgment of 8 January 2004, paras. 109