(including the recent Law on victims and land restitution), and also the administrative and judicial levels, including numerous laws, decrees, documents of the National Council for Economic and Social Policy (CONPES),568 presidential decrees and directives. Nevertheless, as this Court has already indicated in other cases, the Constitutional Court has established “the existence of an unconstitutional state of affairs in the situation of the displaced population owing to the discrepancy between the severity of the effects on the rights recognized by the Constitution and developed by the law, on the one hand, and the volume of resources devoted to ensuring the effective enjoyment of those rights and the institutional capacity to implement the corresponding constitutional and legal mandates, on the other.”569 319. In this case, the representatives and the Commission indicated that the State had failed to comply with its obligations to ensure the rights to personal integrity, to honor and dignity, to the protection of the family, and measures of protection for children, to the detriment of the persons displaced from the Cacarica river basin. They also indicated that the State had not complied with its obligation to ensure and respect the rights without any discrimination based on race or color, and the right to equal protection of the law owing to the harm caused by Operation Genesis, the paramilitary incursions, and the subsequent forced displacement suffered by the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica associated in CAVIDA and by the women heads of household who live in Turbo. B.1. Rights not to be displaced and to personal integrity 320. Starting in January 2000, one segment of the communities displaced from Cacarica began the process of returning to their territory, while another group of the displaced population chose to locate definitively in the town where they had taken refuge following the respective agreement signed with the Government (supra para. 125). Meanwhile, the displaced who returned to Cacarica had remained in a situation of displacement for between three and four years (supra para. 126). Also, there is evidence that, at that time, the factors that had led to the displacement in 1997 persisted in the region, above all the situation of violence and the presence of illegal armed groups. In particular, it is considered to be a proven fact that the communities of “Esperanza en Dios” and “Nueva Vida” continued to be subjected to threats, harassment and acts of violence by the armed groups (supra para. 129). descendant population victim of forced displacement, in the context of the unconstitutional state of affairs declared in Judgment T-025 of 2004 (evidence file, folios 1681 and ff.); Ruling 092 of April 14, 2008, on measures of protection for the fundamental rights of the women victims of forced displacement (evidence file, folios 2756 and ff.); report of the national Government to the Constitutional Court on progress with regard to the unconstitutional state of affairs declared in Judgment T-025 of 2004 (evidence file, folios 13280 and ff.); Law 1448 of 2011, on victims and land restitution (referred to in “The transitional justice arrangement in force in Colombia,” provided by the Vice Minister of Justice, Miguel Samper, deponent for information purposes proposed by the State, during the hearing held before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on February 11, 2013, evidence file, folio 16521), and its regulations, Decree 4800 of 2012 (referred to in “The transitional justice arrangement in force in Colombia,” provided by the Vice Minister of Justice, Miguel Samper, deponent for information purposes proposed by the State, during the hearing held before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on February 11, 2013 (evidence file, folio 16522) 568 Cf. National Planning Department, Document No. 2804, “National Program for Comprehensive Assistance to People Displaced by Violence,” Santafé de Bogota, D.C., September 13, 1995 (evidence file, folios 45537 and ff.); CONPES document No. 2924, “National System for Comprehensive Assistance to People Displaced by Violence,” Santafé de Bogota, D.C., May 28, 1997 (evidence file, folios 45559 and ff.); CONPES document No. 3616, “Guidelines for the income-generation policy for the communities living in extreme poverty and/or displacement, Bogota, D.C., September 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 45579 and ff.); CONPES document No. 3057, “Action Plan for prevention of and attention to forced displacement,” Santafé de Bogota, D.C., November 10, 1999 (evidence file, folios 45721 and ff.); CONPES document No. 3115, “Distribution of the Sectoral Budget to comply with CONPES 3057, Action Plan for prevention of and attention to forced displacement,” Santa Fe de Bogota, D.C., May 25, 2001 (evidence file, folios 46113 and ff.); CONPES document No. 3400, “Goals and prioritization of budgetary resources to attend the population displaced by violence in Colombia,” Bogota, D.C., November 28, 2005 (evidence file, folios 46123 and ff.). 569 Cf. Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-025 of January 22, 2004 (evidence file, folios 897 and ff.). See also: Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 214. 107