conjunction with Article 1(1) of this instrument, which obliges the State to guarantee the enjoyment of the rights.169 * 132. Regarding the representatives’ argument that the failure to comply with the provisional measures represented a violation of the rights established in Articles 44 and 63(2) of the Convention, the Court observes that the State’s non-compliance with the obligation to adopt the appropriate measures of protection to safeguard the life of the beneficiaries of the precautionary and provisional measures became one of the factors that resulted in the violation of those rights, which was analyzed above Article 4(1), in relation to Article 1(1), of the Convention. * 133. Lastly, with regard to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives concerning the violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty (supra paras. 102), this Court considers that, the facts established in the preceding paragraphs and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 7(1) of the American Convention, gave rise to the State’s obligation to investigate the detention, assaults, threats and death (supra paras. 62, 63, 73, 74, 92 and 109 to 115) of the persons declared victims in this chapter (supra paras. 68, 79, 84, 85, 96 and 131). In this regard, the assessment of compliance with the obligation to guarantee the right to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty by an effective investigation of the events that occurred will be made in Chapter X of this judgment. VIII RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND TO PROPERTY A. Arguments of the parties 134. The Commission affirmed that the house searches involving the theft of property and the destruction of the homes of certain members of the Barrios family concerned issues relating to the right to property, the right to family life and privacy, and the protection of the home. The State has not justified the actions of the police agents who intervened in those incidents. Consequently, Venezuela failed to comply with the obligation to respect and ensure family and private life, and private property, and violated the rights embodied in Articles 11 and 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Justina Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Luis Alberto Barrios and his companion Orismar Carolina Alzul García. 135. The representatives indicated that the entry of State agent into a home without legal authorization or the consent of its inhabitants constitutes arbitrary and abusive interference in the family home. In the instant case, the searches and, in some cases, the act of setting fire to the houses and to the possessions were carried out by police agents: (a) without to judicial warrant for the search and in the absence of a situation of flagrante delicto that would have justified entry without a search warrant: (b) with the removal of possessions that have not been returned subsequently and the retention of which has not been justified by the authorities, and (c) with destruction of property, without any reason to explain or justify this. Based on the foregoing, they concluded that the State had violated the rights to 169 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 94, para. 104. 47