Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. C. Right to property C.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 134. The representatives argued that the compensation demanded from the alleged victims and from the legal entity El Universo had an impact on their rights and affected other workers and directors of the media outlet. In this sense, they argued that the pecuniary sanction of more than USD $40,000,000 (forty million United States dollars) for damage to the reputation of the then President was contrary to the Convention, because it had a punitive purpose aimed at sanctioning the alleged victims and El Universo media outlet, and to generate a ‘chilling effect’ to the detriment of journalists and the Ecuadorian press. This sanction was therefore openly contrary to freedom of expression. Similarly, they argued that the judicial sentence for civil compensation legally affected the alleged victims’ right to property, as well as that of the directors and shareholders of El Universo newspaper. This affectation was caused by the judicial process itself, causing losses to El Universo of more than USD$8,000,000 (eight million United States dollars). 135. The State pointed out that the conviction did not produce legal effects, so the factual assumption that the representatives point to as the core of the alleged violation of the right to property never materialized. It thus maintained that there was never any damage to the alleged victims’ assets, therefore there is no international responsibility. In addition, the State maintained that El Universo continued to function normally during the period in which the events occurred, subsequently and to the present day. The State even stated that the expert accounting report presented as evidence shows that it was the year in which the company had greater profits. For this reason, it argued that there was no property damage caused by the conviction against the alleged victims and El Universo. The Commission did not make specific arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right to property. C.2. Considerations of the Court 136. In its case law, this Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material things that can be appropriated, as well as any right that may form part of a person's assets. 194 The Court has also protected, through Article 21 of the Convention, acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into individuals’ assets. 195 It is necessary to reiterate that the right to property is not absolute and, in this sense, it may be subject to restrictions and limitations, 196 as long as these are carried out through the appropriate 194 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, par. 120 and 122, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, par. 192. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, par. 122, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, par. 192. 195 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, par. 128, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, par. 192. 196 45