21 78. The European Court has adopted a similar concept when interpreting Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention when considering that: “[A]s well as physical goods, certain rights and interests constituting assets may also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision […]. The concept of “possessions” is not limited to “existing possessions” but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a reasonable and “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right.”90 79. The Inter-American Court has considered that acquired rights are protected. Thus, for example, in the case of the Five Pensions v. Peru, it determined that Article 21 also protected the acquired rights derived from a pension. In this way, the Inter-American Court has understood as “acquired right,” a right that has been incorporated into a person’s property. 91 80. Following this same reasoning, in the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, the Inter-American Court determined that, in the case of Mr. Chaparro, neither of the parties made “a distinction between the property of the Fábrica Plumavit and the property of Mr. Chaparro.”92 However, the Inter-American Court considered that the evidence submitted revealed that “Mr. Chaparro’s shares in Plumavit amounted to 50% of its capital.”93 In the opinion of the Inter-American Court, this participation in the share capital “could be measured and formed part of its owner’s property from the moment of its acquisition.”94 The InterAmerican Court affirmed that this “participation constituted property over which Mr. Chaparro had a right to the use and enjoyment.”95 81. Regarding the loss in value of the shares, the Inter-American Court considered that of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 220; Case of the Barrios family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 148; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 237; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, para. 82; 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; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 399; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 55; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 174; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 174; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 121; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, para. 102; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 137; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 144, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 122. 90 ECHR, Case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey, Application No. 48939/99, November 30, 2004, para. 124. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 102. This same concept of “acquired rights” has been reiterated in this Court’s case law: Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 220; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 237; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011 Series C No. 223, para. 82; 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; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and Merits, para. 55. 91 92 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 181. 93 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 182. 94 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 182. 95 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 182.