84 Constitutional Court has established that “property shall be considered a fundamental right, provided it is so closely related to the maintenance of basic living conditions, that its violation affects the right to equality and a decent life.”183 182. This Court also considers that setting fire to the houses in El Aro constituted a grave violation of an object that was essential to the population. The purpose of setting fire to and destroying the homes of the people of El Aro was to spread terror and cause their displacement, so as to gain territory in the fight against the guerrilla in Colombia (supra para. 125(26) to 125(103)). Therefore, the effect of the destruction of the homes was the loss, not only of material possessions, but also of the social frame of reference of the inhabitants, some of whom had lived in the village all their lives. In addition to constituting an important financial loss, the destruction of their homes caused the inhabitants to lose their most basic living conditions; this means that the violation of the right to property in this case is particularly grave. 183. Based on the above, this Court considers that the theft of the livestock and the destruction of the homes by the paramilitary group, perpetrated with the direct collaboration of State agents, constitute a grave deprivation of the use and enjoyment of property. 184. The Court has used various criteria to identify the victims of the violation of Article 21 of the Convention in this case. First, the alleged victims can be identified from the application, since it includes the facts relating to the alleged loss of property. In this regard, the Commission stated that “the paramilitary group destroyed and set fire to the majority of the houses in the urban center [of El Aro], and only a chapel and eight houses were saved.”184 The Commission also indicated in the application that “the paramilitary group stole 1,200 head of cattle, horses and mules.”185 In addition, the Commission’s application transcribes several testimonies that provide evidence of the theft of the livestock belonging to several specific farms and persons. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concluded in the application that “effectively [...] the inhabitants of El Aro were robbed of their livestock, and their housing was destroyed by the fire set by the paramilitary group responsible for the incursion, with the acquiescence of law enforcement personnel.” Second, the testimonies indicated by the Commission in its application, as well as several other testimonies included with the evidence forwarded by the Commission, prove that specific persons lost their property. Third, the State has acknowledged the facts described in the application in relation to the loss of property. In this regard, in its answer to the application, the State indicated that it “accept[ed] as certain” the theft of approximately 800 head of livestock, “a fact that was verified in the judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Antioquia Specialized Circuit on April 22, 2003[…] and by the many decisions issued by the Attorney General’s Office, in investigations arising from complaints filed in this matter[…].” The State also accepted the facts relating to the destruction of the houses in El Aro,186 and provided as evidence in this 183 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia. First Review Chamber. Judgment No. T/506/92 of August 21, 1992. 184 Cf. paragraph 54 of the Inter-American Commission’s application. 185 Cf. paragraphs 55 and 88 of the Inter-American Commission’s application. 186 Cf. paragraph 28 of the brief answering the application submitted by the State.