82 (e) The livestock was stolen to “benefit the paramilitary leaders and members of the Army” and to perpetrate acts of extreme cruelty against the civilian population, including children, women and the elderly, merely because they had been falsely accused of collaborating with the guerrilla”; (f) The departmental authorities did not help the alleged victims recover their livestock and did not go to the farm where it had allegedly been taken; (g) The violation of property in El Aro was used as a means of ensuring that the inhabitants could not continue exercising their usual economic activities; (h) In addition to the persons indicated by the Commission, the Court should consider that “the other people who lost property and livestock, and who are identified during the proceedings” are alleged victims. The State’s arguments 171. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of the right to property enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention to the detriment of Luis Humberto Mendoza, Libardo Mendoza, Francisco Osvaldo Pino Posada, Omar Alfredo Torres Jaramillo, Ricardo Alfredo Builes Echeverri and Bernardo María Jiménez Lópera. The State did not say anything with regard to the alleged violation of private property in relation to the other alleged victims mentioned by the representatives (supra paras. 19 and 20). The Court’s findings 172. The Court will proceed to examine the alleged violation of Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention in relation to the facts of El Aro. 173. Article 21 of the Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. The law may 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. […] 174. In its case law, the Court has developed a broad notion of property, which encompasses, among other matters, the use and enjoyment of “possessions,” defined as appropriable material objects, as well as any right that can form part of a person’s patrimony. This notion includes all movables and immovables, corporeal and incorporeal elements, and any other immaterial object that may be of value.182 175. The right to property is guaranteed in Article 58 of the Colombian Constitution. 182 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 121; Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 102; and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 174, para. 137.