37 172. Based on the above, and taking into account the State’s acquiescence, the Court declares that Ecuador violated the right to humane treatment of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Inter-American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. X ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 173. The parties submitted different arguments concerning the norms that regulate seizure and deposit of property suspected of being related to illegal drug-trafficking. Other arguments related to the alleged arbitrary acts committed in this case when executing the seizure of Mr. Chaparro’s factory and Mr. Lapo’s vehicle, in the subsequent management of this property, and in its return. 174. The Court’s case law has developed a broad concept of property that includes, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material goods that can be possessed, as well as any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony. This concept includes all movables and immovables, corporeal and incorporeal elements, and any other immaterial object which may have a value.109 Also, under Article 21 of the Convention, the Court has protected acquired rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into a person’s patrimony.110 The Court observes, however, that the right to property is not an absolute right, because Article 21(2) of the Convention establishes that, for the deprivation of the property of a person to be compatible with the right to property, it must be for reasons of public utility or social interest, subject to payment of just compensation, and only in the cases and in the ways established by law,111 and be carried out in accordance with the Convention. 175. In the instant case, as previously established (supra para. 65), on November 14, 1997, a search was ordered of the Plumavit factory. On November 15, 1997, during the search, the factory was seized and the premises were put under police protection.112 The property seized included the Subaru vehicle, license plate GDK-410113, owned by Mr. Lapo.114 Documents found at the factory, including cheques and invoices, were also confiscated.115 109 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 48, para.102; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 12, para. 137; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 99, para. 129; and The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 144. 110 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners, supra note 78, para. 102. 111 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 48, para. 108; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 12, paras. 145 and 148; and Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 128. 112 Cf. report of November 15, 1997, on the seizure submitted to the Guayas Provincial Anti-narcotics Chief (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 6, folios 840 and 841). 113 Cf. report submitted to the Provincial Chief of the Guayas Anti-narcotics Office, with the inventory of the polystyrene factory known as “AISLANTES PLUMAVIT” (judicial case file, volume 4, folio 1716). 114 Cf. certificate of ownership and registration of the Subaru car, license plate GDK-410, in the name of Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez (judicial case file, volume 78, folio 10184). 115 Cf. report submitted to the Provincial Chief of the Guayas Anti-narcotics Office, with the inventory of documents collected from the Fábrica de Aislantes PLUMAVIT S.A. (case file, volume 4, folios 1706 to 1708).