83 disappeared or deprived of life, but whether the domestic proceedings allowed real access to 400 justice to be ensured, according to the standards established in the American Convention. 302. The Commission observes that, in the present case, there were two proceedings filed with the contentious-administrative courts. Whereas in one of them the National Army was held liable for the failure of its service by omission, in the other the State was exonerated of all responsibility. According to information appearing in the case file, both judgments were appealed and it is not known whether they have been judged. In this regard, at present, the contentious-administrative courts did not constitute either an effective remedy to provide redress for the victims of the case, in addition to the criminal proceedings. 8. Right to private property (Article 21 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument) 303. Case law of the Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses, among others, the use and enjoyment of goods, defined as material things that can be appropriated, including movable and immovable property, as well as any right that can become part of the assets of a person.401 In that regard, the Court has ruled that there is a violation of the right to private property in allegations where the State has been responsible for destroying housing.402 304. In the present case, the Commission deems that, on the basis of the evidence that has accumulated, including statements taken from witnesses, inspection reports of the Prosecution Service and the gathering of evidence, on June 26, 1996, military agents of the FTA shot at the residence of José Gallego Quintero, and then entered his domicile and destroyed his personal belongings. The IACHR also notes that, although these facts were reported by Mr. Gallego Quintero on July 8, 1996, more than 17 years have elapsed without any investigation having been conducted or any of the persons responsible punished. The Commission also notes that the evidence, including photographs of the destroyed housing, as well as bags and cans bearing the logo of the National Army, had supposedly been lost, as a result of which it was never included or taken into account in domestic proceedings. 305. Because of this situation, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to property to the detriment of José Gallego Quintero, as established in Article 21 of the American Convention in connection with the duty to ensure respect established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 9. Right to personal integrity (Article 5.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument) of the next of kin of the victims 400 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 206; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 211. 401 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. No. 74, paragraph 122; Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paragraph 148. 402 See: Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 1 July, 2006. Series C No. 148; Case of the Massacres at El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252.