38 B. Considerations of the Court 133. The alleged victims and their representative can invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Report on the Merits as long as they are related to the facts contained in the Report.195 Therefore, since they are found in the factual framework, the Court will examine the argument of the representative. 134. The case law of the Court has developed a broad concept of private property, encompassing the use and enjoyment of “goods,” defined as those material objects that may be appropriated, and any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony. This concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other intangible object of any value. 196 The Court has also held that the destruction of homes may be a particularly grave violation of the right to property.197 135. It should be mentioned in this case that, although the Army entered the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community, the Xamán finca where the Community was settled was the property of a Cooperative198 and not of one or some of the alleged victims individually. Therefore, the mere entry of the soldiers into the Community, which has been alleged by the representative, could not harm the private property of any of the persons indicated as victims. In addition, it is noted that there is no record that the soldiers entered the lands or houses of the victims nor that they damaged any goods. Thus, the Court holds that the State is not responsible for violating Article 21 of the Convention. VII.5 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW 199 136. The Court has already examined the arguments that allege the violation of the right to equality before the law with respect to the military action of October 5, 1995 (supra para. 105). It will now consider the arguments on this right relating to the acts of the judicial authorities. A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 137. The Commission claimed that the response of the authorities in conducting the investigation and the repeated delays reflect a “lack of prioritization” of cases of serious violations of human rights of those communities at the time. It found, therefore, that the acts were an expression of “racial discrimination” and, thus, a violation of Article 24 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155 and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 48 196 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 120 to 122 and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 240. 197 Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 182 and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, supra, para. 241. 198 The decision of July 8, 2004 (supra, para. 64) holds as proven that, on October 5, 1995, soldiers entered “the property of the Maya Cooperative Union, known as the Xamán Finca” (judgment of July 8, 2004, supra). The representative, questioned by the Court, clarified that the property belonged to the Mayan Integral Agricultural Cooperative Union, comprised of “some of the persons affected by the massacre,” whom it did not identify, as well as other persons “who had returned.” 199 Article 24 of the Convention states: “All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” 195