106 and possessions of the victims were burned before their eyes, depriving them of their shelter and livelihood, and bearing in mind that this forced them to leave the place where they had been living to build new lives elsewhere, which caused anguish to the victims and their next of kin. Also, in Bilgin v. Turkey,230 the European Court considered that the destruction of the victim’s home, perpetrated by the Turkish security forces, constituted inhuman treatment. Finally, in Selçuk v. Turkey,231 the European Court considered that the destruction of the victims’ homes and livelihood, leading to their displacement, constituted inhuman treatment. 274. In light of the above, and bearing in mind the particularly serious facts of this case, the Court finds that the inhabitants of El Aro who lost their homes and were therefore forced to displace, suffered inhuman treatment. The events of El Aro signified for these people not only the loss of their homes, but also the loss of their entire patrimony, and the possibility of returning home. 275. To determine the victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 11(2), 21 and 22 thereof, in this case, the criteria indicated above concerning the determination of the alleged victims of the violations of Article 11(2), 21 and 22 of the Convention (supra paras. 184, 198 and 224) has been taken into account, to the extent that these criteria relate to the determination of the persons who were displaced and lost their homes in El Aro. 276. Based on the above, the Court considers that the victims of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 11(2), 21 and 22 thereof, are the persons indicated in Appendix III of this judgment who have been identified as victims of the violation of Articles 5, 11(2), 21 and 22 of the Convention. e) Concerning the displaced persons 277. The Court finds that the forced displacement of the population of El Aro and some families from La Granja caused them enormous suffering, which has been examined in the chapter on the violation of Article 22 of the Convention (supra paras. 204 to 235). Consequently the Court considers that the displaced persons individualized in Appendix IV of this judgment are victims of the violation of the right to humane treatment. f) Concerning the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro 278. In relation to the claim regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the general population of El Aro and La Granja, the Court considers that, owing to the severity of the suffering caused by the massacres in these districts and the generalized fear arising from the paramilitary incursions in this case, which took place in a context of similar massacres, the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro who have not been indicated in the preceding paragraphs are victims of the violation of the right to humane treatment. * * * 230 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Bilgin v. Turkey, No. 23819/94, Judgment of 16 November 2000, para. 103. 231 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Selçuk v. Turkey, No. 23184/94, Judgment of 24 April 1998, paras. 77 and 78.