161. It is also noteworthy that the Commission has an independent and broad conception of the right to property, particularly in Communication no 276/03, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) vs. Kenya - the Ogoni case, where it held that "the right to property includes not only the right of access to one's property and freedom from violation of the enjoyment of such property or injury to it, but also the free possession and utilization and control of such property, in a manner the owner deems adequate" 30 . 162. The Commission feels that the State is obliged to protect the holders of rights against other subjects, by legislation and the provision of effective remedies. This obligation requires the State to take measures to protect beneficiaries of the protected rights against political, economic and social interference. Protection generally entails the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere or a framework through an effective interplay of laws and regulations, so that individuals can freely exercise their rights and freedoms. This is inextricably linked to one of the obligations of the State which consists in promoting the enjoyment of all human rights 31 . 163. The Commission further believes that by adopting laws on abandoned properties, the State should have taken all the necessary measures to ensure that there would be no misapplications whatsoever of these laws to the extent of arbitrarily and unjustly depriving an individual for the benefit of another. 164. On the argument advanced by the Respondent State that Mr Noca's successor cannot lay claim to a property which no longer belonged to his father, the Complainant in his reply points out that the purpose of all legal actions, in which the late NOCA was involved or initiated, were to defend his interests and that of his successors, and that at no time of the procedure did the Congolese State raise such an exception, which in principle cannot be done at this stage. 165. The Commission should seek to know, considering the argument advanced by the Respondent State, whether or not the Complainant is the holder of the disputed property in order to claim ownership thereof. 166. The Commission notes that, based on the provisions of Section 235 of the said Congolese Land Law which provides that: "Except in cases where the transfer is ordered by the courts or in cases based on specific legislation no transfer may be made until after delivery to the Curator of the certificate in replacement. In all cases of transfer, the old certificate entered in the registration book shall be marked with a cancellation stamp and a notation indicating, in the form established by Article 226, the reasons for the cancellation and the date and number of the new certificate", only the holder of a registration certificate duly established can lay claim to property in the form of a building and the property is expected to belong to him for as long as possible that the transfer would not have occurred. 167. Except for the presentation of a certificate which would have been drafted by the NOCA succession, the Respondent State, has not proved the existence of the sales contract or proved that the transfer of ownership had indeed taken place. 168. The Commission further reminds the Congolese State that at no time during the proceedings was Dino Noca's lack of interest raised. Neither the lower courts nor those of appeal had ever rejected the late NOCA or the State of DRC for lack of interest. 169. The Commission takes note that Mr. Noca has brought several actions in real estate to claim his right to property without winning his case. 170. The Commission, based on the property management agreement concluded in due and proper form between Mr. Lucio Noca, owner of the building, and SONAS, before Mr. Lucio Noca left the DRC to prevent it from being considered abandoned property, including all steps taken by him before he died and by his son after the death of the owner for the return of the property in the Noca heritage, are a proof of the interest that Mr. NOCA had in the building. 171. Furthermore, as far as the Commission is concerned, to admit that a person, in this case the son of the deceased, would recognize the sale of his father's plot of land to a third party and still continue to bear the expenses and transportation costs of his counsel to pursue the case, in the absence of any grounds in this particular case, is an inconceivable fact. 172. The Commission further notes that there was no reaction from the alleged purchaser, and that the argument of the Respondent State that the building had long ceased to be part of the estate of Mr. Noca, who may have sold it to Mr. KASILEMBO, who himself withdrew from the case, is not admissible given that the administration had at the same time recognized the property right of Mr. Noca to the disputed property. 173. The Commission ultimately concludes that given the proven misconduct of the administration, resulting in particular from an irregularity committed in the procedure for granting the title deed that was still in the inheritance of Mr. Dino Noca, the Respondent State has indisputably violated Article 14 of the African Charter. 13