complete information on the assistance given to the Peace Communities. 580 Nevertheless, the Court has also observed that the persons who were at the displacement sites suffered, for at least three years, from different types of scarcities and violations of their right to integrity (in terms of conditions of hygiene, and access to health care and essential basic services, among other elements) (supra para. 118). The Court notes that this lack of attention is especially serious when those affected are persons in a situation of special vulnerability, such as children. 330. In the instant case, it has not been disputed that, as a result of the facts of the case, several hundreds of persons from the Cacarica River communities had to displace, among whom were children,581 while others were born in conditions of displacement. 582 Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights of the child, because it failed to take sufficient positive measures in their favor in a context of greater vulnerability, in particular while they were far from their ancestral territories, a time during which they were affected by the lack of access to education and health care, by overcrowding, and a lack of adequate nutrition. 331. The Court considers that the State failed to comply with its obligation to provide special protection to the children affected by the incursions and the subsequent forced displacements, because it failed to comply with its special obligation to protect them in the context of a noninternational armed conflict. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal integrity of the displaced children, as well as of those who were born in a situation of displacement, recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of this instrument. B.4. Other alleged violations 332. Regarding the obligation to guarantee rights without discrimination, the Court has established that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a general norm the content of which extends to all the treaty’s provisions and establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever its origin or form, any treatment that could be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention is per se incompatible with it.583 States are obliged to adopt positive measures to reverse or modify any discriminatory situations that exist in their societies that affect a specific group of persons. This entails the special obligation of protection that the State must exercise with regard to actions and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or encourage discriminatory situations.584 333. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that while Article 1(1) refers to the general obligation of the State to respect and ensure, “without any discrimination,” the rights contained in the American Convention, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.”585 Thus, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits legal or factual discrimination, not only with regard to the rights established in this treaty, but also with regard to all the laws enacted by the 580 Cf. Management Report of the Joint Verification Commission of March 2004 (evidence file, folios 4986 and ff.). 581 See Annex II. 582 See Annex III. 583 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 78; Proposed amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53 and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 268. 584 Cf. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 271, Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 80. 585 Cf. Proposed amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, paras. 53 and 54, Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 174, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 82. 110