68 322. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated the rights of the child protected under Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights without discrimination, set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilda Medina, Luis Ney Medina, Carolina Isabel Medina, Nene Fils-Aime, Antonio Fils-Aime, Diane Fils-Aime, Marilobi Fils-Aime, Endry Fils-Aime, Andren Fils-Aime, Juan Fils-Aime, Ana Lidia Sensión, Reyita Antonia Sensión, Berson Gelin, McKenson Jean, Victoria Jean, Miguel Jean and Nathalie Jean. I. Right to property (Article 21 of the American Convention), in relation to the obligation to ensure rights without discrimination (Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 323. While in its admissibility report the Commission did not address the alleged violation of Article 21, the facts that substantiate those allegations are an integral part of the case. Furthermore, from the outset the petitioners submitted specific allegations in that regard, which is why the State was in a position to refute those arguments. Given the foregoing and from the analysis of the case file, the body of evidence and the context of the case, the Commission is able to issue its finding on the alleged violations of the right to property. 324. The Commission notes that from their initial observations and throughout the merits phase of the proceedings, the petitioners made allegations regarding violation of the victims’ right to property. Specifically, the petitioners asserted that the predictable and inevitable consequence of the victims’ expulsion was to deprive them of the use and enjoyment of their homes, lands, wages, assets, clothing, food, furniture and livestock. The State did not make any specific arguments on this point. 325. Article 21 of the American Convention reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 326. The Court reasoned that, like the other fundamental rights, effective protection of the right to property requires ensuring that the right to the use and enjoyment of property is guaranteed in law and other instruments, and that there is a simple and rapid recourse to a competent court for protection 299 against acts that violate that right. While the use and enjoyment of property can be subordinated to the general welfare, any measure of that kind must be adopted by law and dictated by necessity; as happens with all rights protected in the hemisphere, that measure must be determined by the just demands of the 300 general welfare and the advancement of democracy. By analogy, while persons may be deprived of the property by the State, this can only be done for reasons of public utility or social interest and 301 according to the cases and in the manner prescribed by law, and upon payment of just compensation. 327. The Court has also written that the right to private property must be understood within the context of a democratic society where in order for the public welfare and the collective rights to prevail there must be proportional measures that guarantee individual rights. The social role of property is a fundamental element for its functioning and for this reason, the State, in order to guarantee other fundamental rights of vital relevance in a specific society, can limit or restrict the right to private property, 299 I/A Court H.R., Case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraphs 111-115. 300 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paragraph 44. 301 I/A Court H.R., Case of Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 143.