authorities should have anticipated this type of disproportionate impact and proposed alternatives to the form of execution that was most detrimental to vulnerable persons. 218. The Supreme Court of the Argentine State has ruled in a similar manner when assessing the application of law 23.982 to specific cases that called for a special proceeding due to the vulnerable situation of the injured party. The Supreme Court indicated that “in the emergency legislation, the restriction of the normal exercise of economic rights recognized by the Constitution must be reasonable, limited in time and it must also consist of a remedy to the serious exceptional situation, without changing the substance or essence of the right recognized” for a specific person357. Consequently, in a case concerning a person with a disability, it mentioned that “the mode of compliance with the judgment as derived from Law 23.982, would not only entail postponing the victim’s entitlement to an economic right, but mainly the frustration of the main purpose of the compensation for injuries to their psycho-physical integrity, which is the cessation of the deterioration process by means of a timely rehabilitation."358 219. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the instant case, the enforcement of the judgment, which ordered compensation in favor of Sebastián Furlán, was not effective and resulted in the lack of judicial protection of the victim; therefore it did not fulfill the purpose of protecting and compensating for the rights that were infringed and were recognized by means of the judicial decision. 220. In the third place, this Court’s case law has developed a broad concept of property that includes, among other things, the use and enjoyment of property, defined as material goods that can be possessed or as intangible things,359 as well as any right that may form part of a person's assets.360 Furthermore, the Court has protected, through Article 21 of the Convention, the vested rights, in other words, rights that have been incorporated into a person’s patrimony.361 Finally, it is necessary to recall that the right to property is not an absolute right and, in this sense, may be subject to restrictions and limitations,362 insofar as 357 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Gutierrez, Alberto v. Argentine Railways suit for damages, August 13, 1998. 358 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Escobar, Héctor Oscar v. Fabrizio, Daniel – Municipality of Tigre and the Argentine Army, August 24, 1995. See also Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Gutierrez, Alberto v. Argentina Railways, suit for damages, August 13, 1998, Considering 11, which indicated “the victim’s need for immediate psychiatric treatment, […] to have sufficient funds to purchase the orthopedic material required for his rehabilitation, a wheelchair, and to cover the relevant kinetic treatment.” 359 Cf. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, footnote on page 74, in which this Court stated that in international common law, it has been established that an expropriation is not limited to tangible or intangible property rights. On the contrary, intangible rights, including Contract rights, are entitled to protection as acquired rights in several arbitration rulings; Cf. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSIIP), Case of Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Egypt. No. ARB/98/4. Award of 8 December of 2000, para. 98, and Case of Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, No. ARB/84/3, Review 328,375 of 1993. Also, International Court of Justice, Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia. Merits. Judgment of May 25, 1926. Series A. No. 7. 360 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C N° 74, paras. 120-122, Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 55 and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 84. 361 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, para. 102, Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 55, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 84. 362 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 128, Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, paras. 60 and 61, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 399. 70