91 313. According to the Court, the destruction of the home constitutes an especially grave violation of the right to property of the affected persons.445 It means for the victims the loss of a material possession of an economic nature, as well as the most basic living condition.446 It also signifies the destruction of their social and community frame of reference.447 314. The Inter-American Court has defined property as “appropriable material objects, as well as any right that can form part of a person’s patrimony,” including “all movables and immovable, corporeal and incorporeal elements, and other immaterial object that may be of value.”448 315. In the matter at hand, the Commission has considered it proven (supra paras. 116-133) that after the forced displacement of Mmes. Rúa and Ospina and their respective family members, their homes were destroyed in stages, and their property appropriated. To this day, Mmes. Rúa and Ospina have been unable to return to what remains of their homes, and have not been able to recover any object from them. 316. As explained above, both presented complaints to the authorities identifying the paramilitaries as responsible for these acts in an area in which the control of these groups had consolidated by 2002; these facts have not been investigated exhaustively by the Colombian State. In the case of Ms. Rúa, this destruction and the consequent appropriation of property was reported to the Criminal Judges of the Medellín Circuit, Antioquia, Subunit on Terrorism, identifying as the persons responsible for these deeds the autodefensas and the Cacique Nutibara Bloc.449 These events were certified on July 10, 2002 by the Municipal System for Disaster Prevention and Response.450 From the documents in the record before the IACHR it appears that in the investigation into the invasion and destruction of property reported by Ms. Rúa no persons responsible have been identified after 10 years, nor have there been positive results tending to clarify their identities, thereby fostering their impunity. 317. Ms. Ospina, for her part, reported these incidents on July 18, 2003 to the Departmental Prosecutor’s Office of the City of Medellín and the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, and they were certified by the Local Government Committee of Comuna 13 on September 27, 2006.451 As will be discussed below, 11 years have passed since the forced displacement and gradual destruction of the home of Ms. Luz Dary Ospina and her family members, and not all of the direct perpetrators and planners of these acts have been identified and punished. It should be noted that the first person convicted for these acts is a member of the Héroes de Granada paramilitary bloc. 445 IA Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, pars. 182-183. 446 Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, par. 182. 447 Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, par. 183. 448 IA Court of HR, Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 122; and IA Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, par 174. 449 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, p. 59. 450 Annex 4. File No. 289, SIMPAD, July 10, 2002. 451 Annexes 16 and 17. Complaints lodged by Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas with the Departmental Prosecutor’s Office, City of Medellín, and the Office of the Ombudsperson, July 18, 2003; Annex 29. Technical Report, Local Government Committee Comuna 13, October 17, 2006.