they were stigmatized because it was thought that something had happened to them because they were members of the guerrilla; people said this, and therefore no one wanted them. In the Honduran refugee camps, it was said that they had been re-victimized […]; moreover, those who were in the camp and then moved to the city were faced with another difficulty, because the codes of conduct that help you live in the camp are no use in the city.”261 186. Article 22(1) of the Convention recognizes the right to freedom of movement and residence. In this regard, the Court has considered that this article protects the right not to be forcibly displaced within a State Party,262 and not to be obliged to leave the territory of the State in which a person is living legally. In addition, the Court has repeatedly indicated that freedom of movement is an essential condition for the free development of a person. 263 Similarly, in its General Comment No. 27, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nation has indicated in relation to the content of this right, that it consists, inter alia, in that: (a) everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence, which includes protection against all forms of forced internal displacement; and (b) the right to enter one’s own country and remain there.264 187. In sum, in the Court’s opinion, the testimony received indicates situations characterized as enforced displacement that correspond, above all, to internal displacement; 265 in other words, displacement within the State’s own territory that, in some cases, eventually took the victims to other countries. The evidence indicates that most of those who crossed the border in search of international protection or refuge266 went to the Republic of Honduras, and remained mainly in the Colomoncagua refugee camps. 188. In addition, in agreement with the international community, this Court reaffirms that the obligation of States to guarantee the protection of the rights of displaced persons involves not only the duty to adopt measures of prevention, but also to provide the necessary conditions for them to return in safety and in dignity267 to their usual place of residence or for their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country. To this end, their full participation in the planning and implementation of their return or reintegration must be guaranteed.268 were mostly relatives of soldiers and despised those who were displaced and called them ‘refugees,’ but [she] told them, ‘we are not refugees, but rather displaced people, because we are in El Salvador, and we are not here because we want to be, but because we are forced, because we cannot live there any longer.’” Sworn statement made by María del Rosario López Sánchez before the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado on June 19, 2011 (evidence file, tome VIII, annex 3 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 5523 to 5524). Juan Bautista Márquez Argueta recalled that he was in Colomoncagua for “around eight years, even suffering discrimination from some Hondurans and members of that country’s army.” Affidavit provided by Juan Bautista Márquez Argueta on April 1, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folio 10277). 261 Expert opinion provided by María Sol Yáñez de la Cruz before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on April 23, 2012. 262 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, para. 188, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 172. 263 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 110, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 220. 264 162 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, para. 110, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 265 For the purposes of these Principles, internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border. Cf. United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacements, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 11 February 1998, para. 2. 266 In this regard, see the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees adopted by the Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama: Legal and humanitarian problems,” held in Cartagena, Colombia, from November 19 to 22, 1984. 267 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 149. 268 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, para. 149. 60