290. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the forced displacements occurred owing to the actions of the paramilitary groups that, within the framework of Operation “Cacarica,” ordered the inhabitants of the communities of the Cacarica River basin to abandon their territories, thus causing a massive displacement of the population. Consequently, taking into consideration that the State’s responsibility has already been determined in relation to the implementation of Operation “Cacarica” (supra para. 280), the Court concludes that the State is responsible for having failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the rights to personal integrity and not to be displaced forcibly (included in freedom of movement and residence), recognized in Articles 5(1) and 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of many of the displaced members of the Cacarica communities, who were present at the time of the paramilitary incursions.556 Other sectors of the communities were also displaced, but not all of them form part of the group of presumed victims in the instant case. IX.2. CONDITIONS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN OF MEMBERS OF THE CACARICA COMMUNITIES FOLLOWING THE EVENTS OF FEBRUARY 1997 (Articles 5(1), 22, 17, 19, 1(1) and 2 of the Convention) A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties Freedom of movement and residence (Article 22 of the American Convention) 291. The Commission indicated that the “circumstances of this case and the special and complex situation of risk of the violation of the human rights of those displaced, include but also go beyond the content of the protection due by the States under Article 22 of the Convention”; thus, it considered the State responsible for the violation of the said article of the "Convention to the detriment of the members of the communities displaced from Cacarica and of the women heads of household who live in Turbo.” 292. The Commission indicated, in particular, that “the displaced Afro-descendants suffered a series of consequences which had a disproportionate impact on the women and children such as family separation, the change in living conditions in the settlements in overcrowded conditions, the lack of access to basic services, food, and adequate health care services, as well as the subsequent increase in disease and malnutrition.” It added that, “within these parameters and bearing in mind the complexity of the phenomenon of internal forced displacement,” the facts described reveal the State’s responsibility for impairing the rights to freedom of movement and residence, personal integrity, protection of the family, the rights of the child, the right to property, and the guarantee of respect for these rights without discrimination, that were violated by the forced displacement and by its consequences. The Commission emphasized that the State had incurred international responsibility for the forced displacement at two different February 2004, paras. 23, 24, 65 and 73 (evidence file, folios 2382, 2383, 2392, and 2393); E/CN.4/2003/13, 24 February 2003, paras. 9, 34, 44, 74, 75 and 77; (evidence file, folios 2445, 2450, 2452, 24659 and 2460); E/CN.4/2002/17, 28 February 2002, para. 62. (evidence file, folio 2520); E/CN.4/2000/11, 9 March 2000, paras. 25, 110 and 111 (evidence file, folios 2640, 2657 and 2658); E/CN.4/1998/16, 9 March 1998, paras. 29, 90, 91 and 175 (evidence file, folios 744, 751 and 762); United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant. Fifth periodic report. Colombia, 18 September 2002, CCPR/C/COL/2002/5, para. 452; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean, Compilation of concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on countries of Latin American and the Caribbean (1977-2004 ), pp. 162, 164 and 179; See also: Reports of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) (by year of the CEACR session) CEACR 2009/80th session. Colombia. Individual observations. ILO Convention 169, individual observation 2008. See also: United Nations, UNHCR. Application of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, entitled “Human Rights Council”, Report presented by the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of the internally displaced persons, Walter Kälin, para. 1. 556 See Annex I. 100