in by other family members or persons who were suitable to ensure their protection, taking into account that their parents had been deprived of liberty. 157. Consequently, the State violated the rights to privacy and to family life, recognized in Articles 11(2) and 17 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the persons who were present or lived in those places, namely: Genaro Ahuacho Luna; Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia; Alfredo Bazán y Rosas; Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón; Freddy Cáceres Castro; Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez; Claudio Tito Centeno Valencia; Carlos Eladio Cruz Añez; Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz; Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar de Lulleman; Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana; Jenny Paola Lulleman Gutiérrez de Zaconeta; Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez; Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez; Julia Mamanu Mamani; Elacio Peña Córdova; María Fernanda Peña Gallardo; F.E.P.M.; Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón; Álvaro Taboada Valencia; Alexis Valencia Alarcón; Claudia Valencia Alarcón; Gabriel Valencia Alarcón; Blas Valencia Campos; Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia, and Mauricio Valenzuela Valencia. B.3. Right to property 158. In its case law, this Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses the use and enjoyment of possessions, defined as appropriable material objects, as well as any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony.230 It should be reiterated that the right to property is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions and limitations,231 provided these are implemented lawfully and in accordance with the standards established in Article 21 of the Convention.232 In light of this right, the Court must now analyze the seizure of some of Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia’s jewelry 233 during the raid of No. 2319 Las Rosas Street.234 It is important to underline that the jewelry was unrelated to the case investigated.235 159. The Court has established that, in the domestic jurisdiction, the adoption of precautionary measures (such as the confiscation of property) does not constitute, per se, a violation of the right to property – even when it does entail a limitation of that right insofar as it affects the ability of the owners to dispose freely of their property – because it does not signify a transfer of the Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No.74, paras. 120 and 122, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 112. 230 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, para. 128, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 112. 231 232 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, paras. 60 to 63, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 112. 233 According to the two briefs filed before the La Paz prosecution service, Norma Alarcón Valencia claimed to be the owner of this jewelry (evidence file, folios 1803 to 1808). Cf. Annex to the brief submitted to the La Paz district prosecutor’s office by Norma Alarcón Valencia on September 1, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1804 to 1808). 234 235 Cf. Certification by the Secretary of the First Sentencing Court of September 3, 2002, indicating that “the First Sentencing Court has never ordered that the jewelry in reference remain in the custody of the prosecutors, either as confiscated goods or as any other measure of a substantive nature (evidence file, folios 1817 and 1818). 47