favor. The high constitutional court of Colombia considered that, in that case, the said Unified List had become “an insurmountable obstacle that [perpetuated] the violation of the fundamental rights of those affected,” who are part of the population displaced by the violence, which has been recognized “as the subject of special protection owing to the extreme vulnerability in which it finds itself,” so that its rights to prompt redress and reparation of the violated rights must be diligently guaranteed by the competent authorities. 428. As the Court has established in other cases, a list of those displaced is an instrument that declares that a person is displaced, but does not make that person displaced and, consequently, it is not appropriate to exclude the 360 persons who do not appear on the RUPD from the list of victims. As Juan Pablo Franco, expert witness proposed by the State indicated, “it is evident that a person is considered an internally displaced person at the time of the events based on which he was forced to migrate within national territory, abandoning his usual place of residence or economic activities.”682 429. Regarding the 158 persons who appear on the RUPD and the RUV, the Court indicates that the temporal and spatial circumstances of the events that are the subject of this case are limited to those that occurred in the municipality of Riosucio in the Chocó department in 1997, so that the persons who displaced from other places and on other dates cannot be considered victims of the events analyzed in this case. This takes into account that, although it is true that the record does not constitute the status of displaced persons, the statements made by these persons in which, presuming they told the truth, they stated that they had displaced from different places and at different times to the events of the case sub judice cannot be disregarded. 430. The State’s obligation to make reparation arises as a result of its responsibility for the facts of the case and the victims affected by these facts. Consequently, the Court cannot order the State to make reparation to individuals who, although they are victims of other situations, have not been declared victims in this specific case. In addition, the representatives have not contested the State’s arguments in this regard, or made any observations on the appropriateness of the lists that were provided for these purposes. Thus, without prejudice to the reparations that they may have the right to claim at the domestic level, the following will not be considered victims in the instant case: (a) the 11 persons who declared before the Central Registry for the Displaced Population that they had displaced at a time other than the weeks following the implementation of Operation Cacarica and the paramilitary incursions (of these, five were not from Riosucio), and (b) the 135 persons who declared before the Registry that they displaced from a place other than the municipality of Riosucio. Therefore, regarding the 158 persons included in the RUPD and the RUV, the Court will consider only 12 of these persons as victims of this case.683 431. Therefore, based on the above considerations, of the original list of 531 victims presented by the representatives, the Court will consider 372 persons as victims in this case, because 341 persons had to displace owing to the facts of this case (Annex I), of whom 203 were minors at the time of the displacement (Annex II), while 31 children were born in conditions of forced displacement following the events of February 1997 (Annex III). 682 15350). Cf. Expert opinion provided by Juan Pablo Franco by affidavit dated January 31, 2013 (evidence file, folio 683 In order to reach the final list of 372 persons, the Court: (a) took the 158 who appear on the RUPD and subtracted the 129 who were expelled from the department of Antioquia, thereby obtaining a total of 29 victims: 28 who were expelled from the department of Chocó and one who had indicated as departament and municipality of expulsion “country,” but was included, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Of the 29 victims, six were excluded who had indicated that their municipality of expulsion was Cármen del Daríen, Nuuquí, Quibdo, Alto Baudó and Belén Bajirá, thus leaving only 23 victims: 22 from Riosucio and the one from “country.” Finally, from the 23 who were left, 11 were subtracted who had not been displaced in 1997, and thus a final list of 12 persons was obtained; and (b) to these 12 persons, were added the 360 persons who do not appear on any RUPD and RUV lists. 135