33 111. Based on the foregoing, though it positively values the recent investigative phase of the State, the Tribunal observes that the domestic procedures and proceedings have not constituted effective recourse to ensure the access to justice, to an investigation and the punishment of the responsible as well as recourse to repair the consequences of the violations committed. Based on the foregoing considerations and taken into account the partial confession made by the State, the Court concludes that Colombia violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and his next of kin, Mr. Etelvina Zapata Escué, Myriam Zapata Escué, Bertha Escuñe Coicue and Francya Doli Escué Zapata and Mr. Mario Pasu, Aldemar Escué Zapata, Yonson Escué Zapata, Ayénder Escué Zapata, Omar Zapata and Albeiro Pasu. XI ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO PROPERTY)108 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 112. The representatives alleged that the State violated the right established in Article 21 of the Convention, due to the fact that members of the Army allegedly burst into the residence of Mr. Escué Zapata and broke several objects and stole some work tools. Furthermore, the representatives pointed out that State agents have also stolen “collective goods which were property of the Community,” which will violate the right enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention to the detriment of the Community. 113. The Commission, in its application, did not expose any fact or legal argument related to an alleged theft in the residence of the victim’s family or in the communal store. Nevertheless, during the public hearing held before this Court, it stated that the "plundering of objects from the communal store" would be proven, which, according to its point of view, would correspond to a violation of the right to property to the detriment of the Paez Community. Finally, in its final written arguments, the Commission pointed out that the Office of the Attorney General would not have investigated "the destruction and the plundering of the communal store," but it did not allege a violation of Article 21 of the Convention. 114. The State denied these charges and mentioned that there is no evidence that proves there was a “misappropriation of goods in the residence […] or some place else.” Furthermore, it sustained that the alleged theft of goods from the communal store is a new fact which was not asserted in the Commission's application. 115. As to the alleged violation of the right to property with respect to the facts occurred in the residence, the Court notes that these facts were not alleged by the Commission in its application. The Commission just pointed out that the militaries “burst into" the residence, but it did not mention that once inside, they broke several objects and stole another ones. and 1172), and provision of the Second Court for the Santander Circuit of Quilichao of May 23, 2007 (records of the merits, Volume IV, pages 1184 to 1186). 108 Article 21 (Right to Property) of the American Convention, in its relevant part, provides 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.