50 118. Peru did not submit any arguments on this issue, since it did not appear before the Court in the case sub judice (supra para. 78). * * * The considerations of the Court 119. Article 21 of the American Convention establishes that: 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. 3. Usury and other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law. 120. Article 21 of the American Convention recognizes the right to private property. In this respect, it establishes: a) that [e]veryone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property”; b) that such use and enjoyment may be subordinated, by law, to “social interest”; c) that a person may be deprived of his property for reasons of “public utility or social interest and in the cases and according to the forms established by law”; and d) that this deprivation shall be upon payment of just compensation. 121. Therefore, the Court must evaluate whether the State deprived Mr. Ivcher of his property and interfered in some way in his legitimate right to its “use and enjoyment”. 122. “Property” may be defined as those material objects that may be appropriated, and also any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony; this concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal elements, and any other intangible object of any value. 123. From Mr. Ivcher’s testimony, it may be concluded that, in 1985, he owned shares in the Company and that, in 1986, they represented 49,53% of the capital. By 1992, his participation amounted to 53,95%, and he was therefore the Company’s majority shareholder. Obviously, this participation in the share capital could be evaluated and formed part of its owner’s patrimony from the moment of its acquisition; as such, that participation constituted a property over which Mr. Ivcher had the right to use and enjoyment. 124. To determine whether Mr. Ivcher was deprived of his property, the Court should not restrict itself to evaluating whether a formal dispossession or expropriation took place, but should look beyond mere appearances and establish the real situation behind the situation that was denounced 90. 90 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L. v. Italy, Judgment of 30 May, 2000, para. 53.