49 116. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention, with regard to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY) The Commission’s arguments 117. With regard to Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission alleges that: a) the right to property embodied in the Convention guarantees the free exercise of the attributes of this, understood to be the right to dispose of it in any legal way, possess it, use it and prevent any other person interfering in the enjoyment of that right: b) the right to property includes all of a person’s patrimonial rights, that is, those that affect both tangible and intangible property of any value; c) although Mr. Ivcher was not formally deprived of his right to the property of the shares of the Company, in practice, the rights that conferred the ownership of the actions on him were suspended through judicial decisions and, therefore, he was arbitrarily deprived of the exercise of the fundamental rights that such ownership implied; d) for a shareholder of a commercial company, the right to sell his shares and to participate in company decisions by exercising his vote at shareholders’ meetings, and also to receive legally and statutorily agreed dividends, are fundamental attributes of the right to property; e) the Peruvian authorities have not only prevented Mr. Ivcher from exercising the ownership of the shares, but also his wife, whose nationality was not in discussion; f) the decision to deprive Mr. Ivcher of his nationality and, subsequently, to prevent him and his family from exercising their rights to property, are the result of the deliberate effort to suppress his freedom of expression; and g) the minority shareholders, exceeding the administrative authority of the Company, proceeded to increase its share capital in secret, without consulting Mr. Ivcher and without the quorum established in the Company’s by-laws; in this way, they intended to become the owners of 60% of the shares of the Company, so that they could take any decision without requiring the agreement of Mr. Ivcher, who became a minority shareholder. The State’s arguments