55 242 criminal investigation and even in cases in which the ownership of the property has not been affected 243 but its use and enjoyment have. Nonetheless, in order to find a violation of the right to property, it is necessary that an effect on the personal patrimony of the alleged victims be plainly established. In this way, it is possible to distinguish between State actions that affect the rights of a legal person and those 244 that affect the rights of a natural person . In the instant case, the Commission finds that the petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence of a direct effect on the personal patrimony of the shareholders presented as victims as a result of the State’s seizure of RCTV’s tangible assets. 2. property Non-renewal of RCTV’s concession and the alleged violation of the right to 176. As previously observed, the petitioners alleged that the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession was itself a violation of the RCTV shareholders’ right to property. According to the petitioners, the “preconceived, prejudiced mindset of the government” destroyed “any legitimate expectation that RCTV” might have had of remaining in operation, and “unlawfully stripped it of a property-related 245 subjective public right.” 177. As previously noted, in its case law the Inter-American Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses, inter alia, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as tangible 246 objects that one can own, as well as any right that has become part of a person’s assets. Through Article 21 of the American Convention, the Court has protected acquired or vested rights, understood as 247 being those rights that have become part of a person’s assets. Thus, for example, the Court has deemed Article 21 violated by the harm caused to a party’s assets by failure to comply with court rulings 248 that seek to protect the right to a pension, and retroactive application of decrees that had the effect of 249 reducing employees’ salaries. In the cases cited here, the Court held that “acquired or vested rights” that are part of a person’s assets, such as pensions, wages, benefits and increases, are protected by the 250 right to property recognized in the Convention. 242 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21,2007. Series C No. 170, paragraphs 183 et seq. 243 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs 128-130. 244 See I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 128, citing International Court of Justice, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment (February 5, 1970), para. 47. See also International Court of Justice, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections (May 24, 2007), paras. 77-94. As the Inter-American Court has noted, this examination should be a careful one and take place on a case by case basis, as “in general, the rights and obligations attributed to companies become rights and obligations for the individuals who comprise them or who act in their name or representation.” I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 27. See also, International Court of Justice, Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment (July 20, 1989). 245 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, pp. 165-167. 246 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs. 120-122; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paragraph 55. 247 Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, paragraph 82. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraph 102; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 76, paragraph 55, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 68, paragraph 84. 248 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraphs 115, 121. Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011, Series C No. 223, paragraph 84. Cf. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, paragraph 83.