265. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, although the representatives argued the violation of Article 22 in relation to all the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, it is also true that the Commission only identified and individualized as presumed victims those persons injured during the bombardment with the cluster bomb. The Court also notes that, in the context of these contentious proceedings, the representatives and the Commission have referred to 200 or 300 displaced persons without individualizing them. 266. Regarding the foregoing, the Court observes that the failure to identify all the persons who were displaced is partly due to the circumstances in which the facts of the case occurred and the profound fear felt by the inhabitants of the village of Santo Domingo (supra para. 243). This makes it impossible to know with certainty how many people were displaced in this case. As indicated previously,389 the Court notes that many other villagers faced this situation but were not individualized by the Commission or the representatives, so that this situation can only be assessed in relation to those who have been identified in these proceedings as injured victims, without prejudice to the measures that the State must adopt at the domestic level with regard to the other displaced persons. 267. In conclusion, the persons who survived the events that occurred in Santo Domingo on December 13 and 14, 1998, were forced to leave their usual place of residence until approximately January 1999. In this regard, the Court observes that the situation of internal forced displacement faced by the victims who had been injured and their next of kin resulted from the explosion of the cluster bomb in the village of Santo Domingo (supra para. 210), added to the fear and the psychological effects of the nearby confrontations, as well as the machine gun attack (supra para. 243). 268. The State is responsible for the violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 5(1) and 1(1) thereof, with regard to Edwin Fernando Vanegas Tulibila; Milciades Bonilla Ostos; Ludwing Vanegas; Gleydis Xiomara García Guevara; Mario Galvis Gelves; Fredy Monoga Villamizar (o Fredy Villamizar Monoga); Mónica Bello Tilano; Maribel Daza Rojas; Amalio Neite González; Marian Arévalo; José Agudelo Tamayo; María Cenobia Panqueva; Pedro Uriel Duarte Lagos; Ludo Vanegas; Adela Carrillo; Alcides Bonilla and Fredy Mora. Also the children, Alba Yaneth García Guevara; Marcos Aurelio Neite Méndez; Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas; Hilda Yuraime Barranco; Ricardo Ramírez; Yeimi Viviana Contreras; Maryori Agudelo Flórez; Rosmira Daza Rojas; Neftalí Neite González and Lida Barranca. B.2. Right to property 269. In its case law, the Court has developed a broad concept of property that covers, among other aspects, the use and enjoyment of “property,” defined as material goods that can be obtained, as well as any right that can form part of a person’s net worth. This concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other non-pecuniary object of value.390 270. As already indicated (supra para. 25), in the instant case, the Court finds it useful and appropriate to interpret the scope of Article 21 of the American Convention using other international treaties, such as the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), and the pertinent provisions of customary international humanitarian law. 271. In this way, Rule 7 of customary international humanitarian law establishes that international humanitarian law stipulates that: “[t]he parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between 389 Cf. Rusmira Daza Roja, statement made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folio 28021); Mario Galvis Gelves, statement made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27941), and Milciades Bonilla, statement made by affidavit (evidence file, tome 50, folio 28006). 390 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 179, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 122. Similarly see: Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 174. ‐ 78 ‐