civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects.”391 272. Regarding the looting, the Court also observes that the said act is expressly prohibited by Article 4(2)(g) of Protocol II of 1977 and that appropriating property in the context of an armed conflict without the consent of its owner is an act prohibited by humanitarian law.392 In addition, the Court recalls that the ICTY has indicated in its case law that this crime is committed when there is an intentional and unlawful appropriation of public or private property,393 and that “the acts of plunder must involve great consequences for the victims. This will be the case when the property is of sufficient monetary value, or when property is appropriated from a large number of people, in which case the scale and the overall impact of the acts of looting will amount to a serious violation of the laws and customs of war.” 394 273. In addition, the Court has considered that, owing to the circumstances in which the events took place, and especially owing to the socio-economic conditions and vulnerability of the presumed victims, the damage caused to their property may have a greater effect and significance than that caused to other persons or groups under other conditions. In this regard, the Court finds that the States must take into account that groups of people who live in poverty face an increased degree of harm to their rights, precisely due to their situation of greater vulnerability.395 274. In this case, the Court has considered proved that, after the inhabitants of Santo Domingo had to abandon their homes and displace as a result of the events of December 13, 1998, looting occurred in some of the homes and stores in Santo Domingo as well as damage and destruction of property and possessions (supra para. 79). 275. Regarding the looting in the village, the Court observes that the representatives and the Commission argue that the Colombian Army is responsible for this, based on the testimony of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo.396 On the other hand, the State maintains that those responsible for 391 In addition, the rules of customary international humanitarian law relevant to this case include: “Rule 8. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. Rule 9. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives. Rule 10. Civilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives.” Henkaerts, Jean – Marie, Doswald – Beck Louise, Customary International humanitarian law, volume I, rules, ICRC, Cambridge, 2005. 392 According to customary International humanitarian law, the following is a customary rule for international and noninternational armed conflicts: “Rule 52. Pillage is prohibited”. See: Henkaerts, Jean – Marie, Doswald – Beck Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, volume I, rules, ICRC, Cambridge, 2005, p. 182. 393 Cf. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, case of Kordic and Cerkez, Appeals Chamber, December 17, 2004, para. 84, and case of Naletilic and Martinovic, Trial Chamber, 31 March 2003, para. 612. 394 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, case of Simic, Tadic and Zaric, Trial Chamber, 17 October 2003, para. 101. 395 Cf. Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. 249, para.204. 396 Cf. Colombian Military Forces. Air Force. Military Criminal Investigation Unit. Record of testimony provided by Olimpo Cárdenas. Tame (Arauca) December 28, 2000 (evidence file, tome 15, folio 7890). See also: Attorney General’s Office National Special Investigations Directorate Human Rights Unit, Record of the statement made by Wilson García Reatiga, Tame (Arauca), June 17, 1999 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1492); Attorney General’s Office National Special Investigations Directorate Human Rights Unit, Record made of the statement made by Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar, Tame (Arauca) June 19, 1999 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1415); Testimony of Luis Sel Murillo provided on December 21, 1998, before the 24th Military First Instance Court, pp. 2 and 3 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1406); Testimony of Jaime Rojas in newspaper article: El Tiempo, “Dos historias distintas de un mismo ataque”, December 17, 1998 (evidence file, tome 14, folio 7353); Attorney General’s Office. General Directorate for Special Investigations. Human Rights Unit. Record of the statement made by Martin López Trigos. Tame (Arauca) June 19, 1999 (evidence file, tome 16, folios 8269); Attorney General’s Office. General Directorate for Special Investigations. Human Rights Unit. Record of the statement made by Luz Claudelina Estrada Chavez. Tame (Arauca) June 17, 1999 (evidence file, tome 4, folios 1509 and ff.); Testimony of the victim Mario Galvis Gelves of June 12, 2012, in statements made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27941); Testimony of victim Lucero Talero Sánchez of June 6, 2012, in statements made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folios 27952 and ff.), and Testimony of victim Hugo Fernely Pastrana Vargas, in statements made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folios 27993 and ff.). ‐ 79 ‐