61 of forced disappearance and their relatives lived, arguing that this constituted an additional violation of the right to property and also of the right to private and family life. They pointed out that “the soldiers illegally raided the victims’ homes, forced them to leave and then set fire to them” and that, when the relatives of the 14 missing victims returned, they “found a devastating scene: burned houses, looted belongings, dead animals, a lot of blood around the houses, […] clothes strewn on the ground and footprints that suggested that that the victims were forced to walk barefoot.” Therefore, they alleged that “[t]he destruction of the victims’ homes by agents of the State constitutes an abusive and arbitrary interference in the private life and the home of the victims, in addition to a violation of the right to property.” Accordingly, they asked the Court to declare that the State violated Articles 21 and 11(2) of the American Convention, also in breach of Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 198. The Commission did not present legal arguments regarding the alleged violation of Articles 21 and 11(2) of the American Convention. The State did not present arguments in this regard either, since it considered that the facts described by the representatives are outside the factual framework of this case (supra para. 16). B. Considerations of the Court 199. In its case law, this Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses, inter alia, the use and enjoyment of “property,” defined as appropriable material possessions, as well as any right that may form part of a person’s assets. This concept includes all movable and immovable property, tangible and intangible elements, and any other immaterial object that may have a value. 223 200. In turn, the Court recalls that Article 11(2) of the Convention 224 recognizes that a personal sphere exists that must be exempt and immune from abusive or arbitrary interference or attacks by third parties or by public authorities. In this sense, the home and private and family life are intrinsically connected, because the home becomes a space in which private and family life can unfold freely. 225 201. As already established in this judgment, in the area of the community of Santa Barbara, it was common for the Peruvian army to enter the homes of the inhabitants and steal their food, tools and livestock (supra para. 87). In the instant case, the Court notes, on the one hand, that the testimonies of the alleged victims and witnesses mention that during Operation “Apolonia”, soldiers raided the houses of the Hilario Quispe and Hilario Guillén families, seized their alpacas and cattle and burned down their homes. In this regard, Mr. Zósimo Hilario Quispe, son of Francisco Hilario Torres and Dionicia Quispe, stated that “[…] at the ranch [his] parents had 400 alpacas and 30 cows […].” 226 However, when he arrived at the community a few days after the events of July 4, 1991, he did not find the animals. His brother, Marcelo Hilario Quispe, who was also a livestock farmer and who raised alpacas, sheep and cows, stated and that upon returning to Rodeo Pampa he found his house burned down and his animals and work tools gone. 227 Likewise, Gregorio Hilario Quispe, who was also a cattle farmer, stated that the soldiers had burned down the house of his father, Francisco Hilario Torres, and had taken approximately 400 223 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 122, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 335. 224 Article 11(2) of the American Convention establishes that: “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 225 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, paras. 193 and 194, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 128. 226 Cf. Statement rendered by affidavit by Zósimo Hilario Quispe January 9, 2015 (evidence file, folios 5200) 227 Cf. Statement rendered by affidavit by Marcelo Hilario Quispe January 9, 2015. (evidence file, folios 5203 and 5207)