The home and any private property of an individual are inviolable. They can only be searched with a judicial search warrant, to prevent the perpetration of a crime or to comply, pursuant to the law, with decisions issued by the courts, always respecting the dignity of the individual. 146. The evidence available does not show that the searches were conducted with a judicial warrant or that the entry was with the consent of those affected or that it took place in a situation of flagrante delicto or another legally accepted presumption. In addition, the State has not contested specifically the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives, and has not disproved the indications pointing to the participation of State agents in these facts. 147. Based on the above, the Court finds that the entry of police agents into the homes of Brígida Oneyda Barrios and of Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García, without a judicial order or legal authorization and without the consent of the inhabitants, constituted arbitrary and abusive interference in their family home. Consequently, the State violated the right to privacy embodied in Article 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García and of their direct family who, the Court has verified, lived in these homes: Marcos Antonio Díaz Barrios, Sandra Marivi Betancourt Barrios, Junior José Betancourt Barrios, Wilneidys Betania Pimentel Barrios, Ronis David Barrios Alzul and Roniel Alberto Barrios Alzul. 2. Right to property 148. Regarding the right to property, the Court has developed a broad definition in its case law that covers, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material objects that can be acquired, as well as any right that can form part of the personal wealth of a person.188 This concept includes both personal possessions and real estate, tangible and intangible elements and any other non-material objects of value.189 149. In the instant case, the Court finds that the right to property of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García and the next of kin named above (supra para. 147) was affected by the fact that, during the search of their homes, police agents removed without authorization and failed to return household appliances, money, medicines, clothes and articles of personal hygiene, destroyed documents, clothes and household appliances, and set fire to part of the residence of Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García. The victims were deprived of the said possessions without any justification, and the State has not specifically contested these facts or provided explanations about what happened. 150. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to property recognized in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therefore, to the detriment of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García as well as of the next of kin who, the Court has verified, lived in the said homes: Marcos Antonio Díaz Barrios, Sandra Marivi Betancourt Barrios, Junior José Betancourt Barrios, Wilneidys Betania Pimentel Barrios, Ronis David Barrios Alzul and Roniel Alberto Barrios Alzul. 188 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 120-122, and Case of Aprill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 82 189 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 188, para. 122, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 55. 51