60 and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, initiated on July 4, 1991, since there is no certainty that their remains have been located and identified, nor has there been any clear response regarding their fate. Consequently, the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of all the aforementioned persons. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the violations also occurred in relation to Article 19 of the Convention with respect to Yesenia, Miriam and Edith Osnayo Hilario, Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Hilario, Raúl and Héctor Hilario Guillén, who were children at the time when their forced disappearance began (supra para. 90). Likewise, in application of the iura novit curia principle, 221 the Court concludes that the violations indicated also occurred in relation to Article I.a) and II 222 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as of March 15, 2002, the date of its entry into force in Peru. The Court also considers that said violations, which occurred in a context of a systematic practice of forced disappearances (supra para. 85), constitute serious human rights violations. 195. Finally, the Court deems it pertinent to analyze, in Chapter IX.III of this judgment, the alleged breach of the duty to provide guarantees, given the lack of a diligent, serious and effective investigation of the facts (supra paras. 152 and 154). IX.II RIGHTS TO PROPERTY AND TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 196. The representatives alleged that the State violated the rights to property and to private and family life based on two arguments. First, they alleged that State agents stole the livestock, provisions and all other valuable property they found in the victims’ homes, in the context of a military operation that resulted in their disappearance; to date the victims have not recovered said property or received compensation of any kind. According to the representatives, initial reports of the events indicated that the soldiers seized 450 alpacas, 300 sheep, 15 horses and 19 head of cattle, together with foodstuffs consisting of corn, barley, potatoes and other supplies from the ranch where the family houses were located. In this regard, the representatives emphasized that “the victims and their next of kin have a close link with their livestock, which is their main source of subsistence,” and that “due to the adverse socioeconomic circumstances in which the victims lived, the illegal removal of their property by military personnel had a greater impact on them.” Consequently, they requested that the Court declare the violation of the right to property, established in Article 21 of the Convention, of “the victims and their next of kin.” 197. Secondly, the representatives alleged that State agents set fire to two houses belonging to the families of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán, in which 14 of the victims 221 The Court has ruled based on the iura novit curia principle, solidly supported by international jurisprudence, on repeated occasions. Cf. Among other cases: Case of "Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 128; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 134; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 142; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, supra, para. 178; Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 124 to 126; Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 28, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 160. 222 Article I (a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees.” Article II of this instrument establishes: “For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.”