this case. Regarding the factual framework of the case submitted to this Court (supra paras. 37 to 41), the representatives cited the relevant parts of that dissenting opinion which stated that the Inter-American Commission’s declaration in its Report on Merits that the State violated the rights to due process and to judicial protection “implied a violation of the obligation to protect the right to property.” In this regard, the representatives underlined that, as a direct result of the violation of judicial guarantees owing to the actions of the Advisory Commission, “the right to property [was violated] also.” They indicated that “the result of the [Advisory Commission’s] incorrect application of criteria was the failure to return [their] savings,” and that “since the issue involves a claim for money that belongs to [them], the failure to return it constitutes a violation of the use and enjoyment of [their] private property[, …] a deprivation [that] lacks any justification.” 235. The State argued that “no act of the Uruguayan State or the Central Bank of Uruguay was intended to deprive the petitioners of the funds they invested, or to limit their availability,” because “the matter relates to the failure of a private investment, made […] through a private Uruguayan institution.” Uruguay added that “the reasons and evidence why each case that was decided favorably warranted the protection of the Board of the Central Bank [of] Uruguay, with the prior recommendation of the commission of jurists designated for that purpose, has already been provided.” It also indicated that it “wished to insist that the petitioners did not avail themselves of the remedies offered to them by the domestic legal system to obtain the annulment of the unfavorable decisions.” Considerations of the Court 236. The Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives can invoke the violation of other rights in addition to the ones already included in the application provided they relate to facts already included in the application and are invoked at the proper procedural opportunity (supra para. 36). 237. In its case law, this Court has developed a broad concept of property that covers, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material goods that can be possessed, as well as any right that can form part of an individual’s personal wealth.271 In addition, under Article 21 of the Convention, the Court has protected acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into an individual’s personal wealth.272 238. In this case, the Court has not ruled on whether or not the alleged victims complied with the requirements established in article 31 of Law 17,613 to accede to the rights established under that article, because it is not incumbent on it to decide this. In addition, all the domestic administrative and judicial decisions in relation to such rights have rejected the claims of the alleged victims. Contrary to other cases in which the Court has decided that there has been a violation of Article 21 in relation to or derived from the declared violations of Articles 8 and 25,273 in the instant case there has been no 271 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 252, paras. 120-122; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra note 30, para. 55, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 84. 272 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra note 18, para. 102; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra note 30, para. 55; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, supra note 271, para. 84, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 15, para. 84. 273 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru, supra note 18, paras. 121, 138 and 141; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra note 30, paras. 99 to 118; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, supra note 271, paras. 74 to 91, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 15, para. 85. 87