residence of the survivors of the massacres was limited by severe de facto restrictions, originating from the State’s acts and omissions, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention. 194. These surviving victims who were displaced from their place of origin, “lost the community and affective ties on which their identity was rooted, in addition to their possessions,” which led to “forced changes in the social structure, which entail[ed] ruptures, losses, pain, and much suffering.”279 In addition, the Court considers that, in this case, the displacement of the children who survived the massacres is especially significant. In addition, to the impact mentioned, as expert witness Yáñez de la Cruz explained, “they found that both their father and mother had been killed, or one of them, and also they had to flee [and] everything is suffering.”280 It has also been confirmed that the displaced surviving victims have endured a much greater impact on their health and well-being as a result of “the complete breakdown of the cultural network in northern Morazán, of the creation of a state of total anomie, and of the complete destruction of a culture.”281 195. In sum, the Court observes that the situation of enforced displacement internally and to the Republic of Honduras that the survivors endured cannot be separated from the other violations that have been declared. Indeed, the displacement originates from the violations suffered during the massacres, not only as a result of the violations of the right to life (supra paras. 151 to 157), to personal integrity (supra paras. 159 to 165 and 170 to 174), and to personal liberty (supra para. 158), but also due to the destruction of livestock, crops and homes, in violation of the right to property (supra paras. 168 and 175 to 181), and to the arbitrary or abusive interference in private life and the home (Article 11(2) of the Convention) (supra paras. 168 and 182). Moreover, since it has been proven that there were children among the surviving victims, the Court concludes that the violations to their detriment also occur in relation to Article 19 of the Convention. 196. Finally, the Court notes that the representatives argued the joint violation of Articles 11(2) and 22 of the Convention in relation to both those who were displaced within the country and those who crossed the border. In particular, they maintained that the enforced displacement gave rise to numerous human rights violations, including the violation of the right to private and family life, the violation of the right to integrity and the violation of the right to freedom of movement. Regarding the right to privacy, they argued that it is intrinsically linked to the life project of the victims. Consequently, they argued that the enforced displacement had evidently affected the possibility for the victims to lead their lives independently. In other words, they were unable to live their life as they would have done if the massacres and the subsequent situation that kept them far from their place of origin or residence had not occurred. Their living conditions were seriously affected, by living without their family members who were murdered, without their means of subsistence, and away from their environment and their social relations; hence, their life project was profoundly affected. Consequently, the representatives considered that the enforced displacement of the surviving victims of the massacres had entailed a serious violation of their right to private and family life. In this regard, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on this argument as it refers to the same facts that have already been analyzed in light of other treaty-based obligations. Nevertheless, they will be taken into account, as appropriate, when ordering the reparations. 3) The alleged human rights violations to the detriment of the next of kin of those executed 279 Expert opinion on psychosocial impacts and recommendations for reparations in the case of “The Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places” provided by María Sol Yáñez De La Cruz, undated (evidence file, tome XVIII, annex 2 to the final written arguments of the representatives, folios 10548 to 10550).). 280 Expert opinion provided by María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on April 23, 2012. 281 Cf. Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Father David Scott Blanchard on April 15, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folio 10333). 63