116 also affected the right of the next of kin of the victims to a decent life,243 in connection with non-fulfillment of the obligations to respect and to guarantee the rights embodied in those provisions. 187. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that the terms of an international human rights treaty have an autonomous meaning, for which reason their meaning cannot considered identical to that given to them under domestic law. Furthermore, said human rights treaties are live instruments whose interpretation must adjust to the changing times and, specifically, to current living conditions.244 188. Through an evolutive interpretation of Article 22 of the Convention, taking into account the applicable provisions regarding interpretation and in accordance with Article 29.b of the Convention —which forbids a restrictive interpretation of the rights-, this Court deems that Article 22(1) of the Convention protects the right to not be forcefully displaced within a State Party to the Convention. As regards the instant case, this has also been recognized by the Constitutional Court of Colombia when it interpreted the content of the constitutional right to choose a place of residence, “insofar as to flee from the risk to their lives and personal safety, the displaced individuals have had to escape from their customary place of residence and work.”245 189. For the aforementioned reason, the Court finds that Colombia violated Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 4(1), 5(1), 19 and 1(1) of said treaty, to the detriment of Mariela Contreras Cruz, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Maryuri and Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Zuli Herrera Contreras, Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Marina Sanmiguel Duarte; Nadia Mariana, Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber, all of them Valencia Sanmiguel; Teresa López de Pinzón and Luz Mery Pinzón López. Of these individuals, at the time of the facts Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Maryuri and Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Nadia Mariana, Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber, all of them Valencia Sanmiguel, and Carmen Johanna Jaramillo were minors. XIII ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN COMBINATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THAT CONVENTION (RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Pleadings of the Commission 243 See Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 12, paras. 162 and 163; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 164, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 193, para. 191. 244 See The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114. Also see, in adjudicatory cases, Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 12, para. 125; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 184, paras. 146 to 148, and Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 41-44. 245 See judgment T-025/04 of January 22, 2004, issued by the Third Appellate Chamber of the Constitutional Court (file with appendixes to the final pleadings submitted by the representatives, volume I, page 5156).