however, from the village of Mazala, Joateca jurisdiction, he visited his land to see in what condition it was.”274 191. In this regard, the State did not provide any information on the measures it had adopted to ensure the conditions for the return of both the internally displaced people and those who had been obliged to go to Honduras in search of refuge. Moreover, although the State had contested their credibility (supra para. 17), the different reports provided by the representatives all confirm that, in 1985, the National Commission for Assistance to Displaced Persons in El Salvador (CONADES) and the National Commission for the Restoration of Areas (CONARA) were both operating, together with other initiatives of the State itself, the Church, or international and non-governmental organizations, to provide opportunities for repatriation, resettlement and assistance to the displaced. At the same time, these reports mention two issues that were a factor in preventing many people from seeking assistance or fearing to ask for help from the State programs; on the one hand, that CONADES and CONARA were controlled by or had connections to the army275 and, on the other hand, that CONADES operated under a registration system,276 by which access to certain information was required that “was extremely sensitive” in the context of the Salvadoran internal armed conflict.277 192. The lack of evidence to contest the ineffectiveness of the State programs, together with the testimony of those displaced as a result of the massacres, allow the Court to conclude that the State has not adopted sufficient and effective measures to guarantee to the persons forcibly displaced as a result of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places a dignified and safe return to their usual places of residence, or voluntarily resettlement in another part of the country. 193. In the instant case, and as can be inferred from the testimony received, it has been proved that situations of mass displacement occurred caused precisely by the armed conflict and the lack of protection suffered by the civilian population because it was equated with the guerrilla and also, in the instant case, as a direct consequence of the massacres that occurred between December 11 and 13, 1981, and the accompanying circumstances, which have also been verified, of this being part of a State scorched earth policy; all of which meant that the survivors were obliged to flee their country, seeing their life, safety or freedom threatened by the generalized and indiscriminate violence. The Court concludes that the State is responsible for the conduct of its agents that caused the enforced displacement internally and to the Republic of Honduras. In addition, the State did not provide the conditions or means that would allow the survivors to return in a dignified and safe manner. As this Court has established previously, the lack of an effective investigation of acts of violence can encourage or perpetuate enforced displacement.278 Consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, the freedom of movement and 274 Affidavit provided by Juan Antonio Pereira Vigil on April 2, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folios 10289 to 10291). 275 Cf. New Issues in Refugee Research. International Center for Research on Women, Working paper No. 25: Conflict, Displacement and reintegration: household survey evidence from El Salvador, July 2000 (evidence file, tome X, annex 9 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6476); Uprooted: The displaced people of Central America, British Refugee Council Publication, March 1986 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 19 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7031 s 7032); U.S. Committee for Refugees. Aiding the Desplazados of El Salvador: The complexity of Humanitarian Assistance (evidence file, tome XIII, annex 27 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8653, 8654, 8657 and 8658), and Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights and Americas Watch, El Salvador´s other victims: the war on the displaced (evidence file, tome XIV, annex 28 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8747 and 8768). Similarly, Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Father David Blanchard on April 15, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folios 10346 to 10347). 276 Cf. Uprooted: The displaced people of Central America, British Refugee Council Publication, March 1986 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 19 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 7032), and Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights and Americas Watch, El Salvador´s other victims: the war on the displaced (evidence file, tome XIV, annex 28 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8747, 8797 and 8798). 277 Cf. Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Father David Blanchard on April 15, 2012 (evidence file, tome XVII, affidavits, folios 10346 to 10347). 278 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 165, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 220. 62