195. Regarding the arguments of the representatives concerning the violation of Articles 44 and 63(2) of the Convention, the Court notes that the State's noncompliance with its duty to adopt appropriate measures of protection to safeguard the lives of the beneficiaries of the precautionary and provisional measures resulted in factors that led to the violation of those rights, which was already analyzed in the preceding paragraphs under Article 5(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. VI.4 RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY A. - Arguments 196. The Commission held that the raids on Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui’s home, following the complaints he filed regarding his brother’s death and other violent deaths that occurred during police operations, made him the target of threats, intimidation and harassment by members of the Falcón Police or persons associated with them. It further noted that this case is of particular importance because the violence occurred in the context of his work as a human rights defender. Therefore, the Commission considers that in this case there was a violation of Article 11 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of thereof, to the detriment of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui. 197. The representatives stated that Luis Enrique Uzcátegui devoted himself to seeking justice for the death of his brother and bringing together the family members of other victims of similar crimes in the State Falcón and that for this reason he was harassed, unlawfully arrested, beaten and on several occasions his home was raided. In particular, they recalled that on January 1, 2001, the police officers had entered the Uzcátegui family’s house and had destroyed part of the building to force their way in. They added that there was no public interest or social imperative that would justify such actions and their extremely violent nature. Therefore, they argued that the State violated the right to private property, recognized in Article 21 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui and his relatives. 198. Regarding the alleged violation of the home, the State argued that officers Armed Police Forces of the State of Falcón found it necessary to enter the house without a warrant and arrest the Uzcátegui brothers because they were faced with the commission of a crime. It added that the “conduct of the officers who participated in the procedure was covered by the exceptions provided for in Article 210, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Venezuelan Code of Criminal Procedure.” It added that there was another excuse for not demanding accountability for the conduct of the police officers, which is that the owner of the house allowed them to enter. Therefore, the State considered that its conduct is protected by its legislation. B.- Considerations of the Court 199. As regards the aforementioned arguments of the Commission and the representatives, the Court shall consider: 1) the right to privacy in relation to the alleged interference in the home of the grandmother, Julia Chiquinquirá Jiménez, and 2) the right to private property. 49