113 reproduced by cultural prejudices that hinder the integration of the displaced population in society and that can lead to impunity regarding the human rights violations against them. 178. With regard to this situation of inequality, it is pertinent to recall that there is an unbreakable tie between the erga omnes obligations to respect and guarantee human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination, which has the nature of jus cogens and is crucial to safeguard human rights both under international law and under domestic venue, and which impregnates all actions by State power, in all its expressions. To comply with said obligations, States must abstain from carrying out actions that in any way, directly or indirectly, create situations of de jure or de facto discrimination, and they must also take positive steps to revert or change existing discriminatory situations in their societies, to the detriment of a given group of persons. This entails the special duty of protection that the State must provide in connection with actions and practices of third parties who, under its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or foster discriminatory situations.238 179. Under the terms of the American Convention, the differentiated situation of displaced persons places States under the obligation to give them preferential treatment and to take positive steps to revert the effects of said condition of weakness, vulnerability, and defenselessness, including those vis-à-vis actions and practices of private third parties. 180. In the instant case, the characteristics of the massacre in Mapiripán, the experiences of the days of the massacre, the damage suffered by the families, together with the fear of the next of kin that similar events might happen again, the intimidation and threats against some of them by paramilitary, as well as of rendering their testimony or for having rendered it, led to the internal displacement of many families from Mapiripán. It is possible that some of the displaced next of kin did not live in Mapiripán at the time of the facts but rather in areas nearby, but they were also forced into displacement as a consequence of the facts. As the testimony itself shows, many of these persons have faced grave conditions of poverty and lack of access to many basic services; for example: Zuli Herrera Contreras stated: My mother was shattered, she lost everything in one moment, the smaller children cried for their father, for their brothers, and they asked about them all the time. […] [In Bogotá] we built a tin and plastic hut. It was very difficult, my spouse did not have a job, and I did not have one either. There were days in which my children had to drink from the tank to calm their hunger. It was very hard when the children asked for food and we had none to give them.239 Yur Mary Herrera Contreras expressed: 238 See Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC 18/03, supra note 190, paras. 86 to 105. 239 See statement rendered as testimony before a notary public (affidavit) by Zuli Herrera Contreras on February 4, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4530).