87 Guayaquil, bearing in mind that the transfer was based on an alleged immigration control; c) Mr. Tibi’s unlawful, arbitrary, and protracted detention, the high costs incurred in his defense, together with the travel expenses from Quito to Guayaquil, Mr. Tibi’s inability to conduct activities while he was in prison, subsequent loss of his work and unlawful confiscation of his property, which continues to date, directly affected Mr. Tibi’s family and left them unprotected at very difficult times, given his wife’s pregnancy, subsequent birth of his daughter, when he was still in prison, and how young the other girls were; d) another consequence of the stress and suffering due to the abridgments of Mr. Tibi’s human rights was the dissolution of his relationship with Beatrice Baruet and separation from his daughters; in addition to affecting Mr. Tibi as an individual, this harmed the family unit; and e) the State did not adopt the necessary measures to protect Mr. Tibi’s family, but rather caused its separation and dissolution of that family, breaching Article 17(1) of the American Convention. Pleadings of the Commission 202. The Commission made no pleadings in regards to Article 17 of the American Convention. Pleadings of the State 203. The State made no pleadings in regards to Article 17 of the American Convention. Considerations of the Court 204. Article 17(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. […] 205. This Court deems that the facts alleged in the instant case have already been examined regarding the conditions and period of detention of Mr. Tibi and in regards to their consequences for his family (supra para. 161). XIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) Pleadings of the Commission 206. In regards to the alleged violation of Mr. Tibi’s right to property, embodied in Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: