B.2. Alleged violation of the right to property 127. Regarding the allegations made by the Inter-American Public Defenders in relation to the violation of the right to property of Ms. Shirley Lourdes Quiñonez Bone due to the damage suffered by the Rodach vessel as a consequence of the operation carried out by the Marines, the Court finds that it does not have the necessary elements to rule on the matter. 128. This is said without ruling out the possibility that the allegation could be understood to be consistent with the factual framework of the case (supra paras. 51 and 78), it is noted that the argument, rather than substantiating an autonomous violation of the right to property, is aimed at supporting a specific claim in terms of reparations, subordinate to the damage that the intervention of the agents on the day of the facts could have caused the boat owned by Ms. Quiñonez Bone. Indeed, the representatives of the alleged victims point out that the aforementioned boat was allegedly rendered unusable as a result of the shots that hit it during the operation. Nevertheless, the Court lacks evidence that would allow it to verify such affirmation. 129. Based on the above, it is not appropriate to issue a statement regarding the above allegation, both due to a lack of specific substantiation of the subject and the absence of evidence on the alleged affectation of the right to property. Given the foregoing, the Court will address the damage to the Rodach boat in relation to reparations. B.3. Conclusion 130. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment, recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same international instrument, to the detriment, respectively, of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez, and his brothers Andrés Alejandro and Sebastián Darlin, with the surnames Casierra Quiñonez. VIII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS, 121 AND ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS TO THE PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY AND TO EQUAL PROTECTION BEFORE THE LAW 122 a. Arguments of the parties and the Commission A.1. Rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection 131. The Commission argued that, since they were violations of the rights to life and humane treatment, the facts of the instant case could not be considered “crimes of duty,” which explains why the investigation should have been carried out in the ordinary jurisdiction. It indicated that the intervention of the military justice in the specific case was due to Article 187 of the Constitution in force at the time of the events and Article 2 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure, which did not clearly delimit the scope of applicable subject matter jurisdiction. 132. It concluded that the State failed to observe the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, specifically the right to have a competent, independent and impartial authority, as well as to have an adequate and effective judicial remedy, thereby violating Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same international 121 122 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of the same instrument. Articles 11, 17 and 24 of the American Convention. 32