114 [My relatives h]ad to leave everything in Mapiripán, they had to go from one farm to another […]. During those three years I had no news from them, I was very frightened.240 181. Some of the next of kin of the victims – true survivors of the massacre – are convinced that they cannot return to Mapiripán until they obtain justice regarding the facts of the massacre. Several of them have also stated their deep concern regarding the possibility of suffering new aggressions if they return to Mapiripán, which is located in an area of paramilitary presence (supra paras. 75.a) and 76.f)). In other words, their right to personal security is abridged by the situation of displacement, both due to the situation they have faced and because they have not been provided with the necessary conditions to return to Mapiripán, if they wished to do so. 182. The Court must emphasize that Colombia, to address the situation of domestic displacement, which is one of the greatest problems caused by the conflict, has taken a number of legislative, administrative and judicial steps, including multiple laws, decrees, documents of the Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social (CONPES), presidential orders and directives. One of these noteworthy measures is Law N° 387 of July 18, 1997, which defines the concept of displaced persons and grants those who are in that situation a special legal status. A great variety of public policies have also been developed in connection with the problem of displacement, including production programs, alliances with the private sector and various support programs (supra para. 96.61). Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court of Colombia itself, when it decided on the aforementioned actions for constitutional protection of rights, asserted “the existence of an unconstitutional state of affairs regarding the situation of the displaced population due to the lack of accord between the gravity of the detriment to the constitutionally recognized rights, developed in the Law, on the one hand, and the amount of resources effectively allocated to ensuring the effective exercise of said rights and the institutional ability to implement the respective constitutional and legal mandates, on the other hand.”241 Specifically, it found that despite the actions carried out by certain State agencies to mitigate the problems of the displaced population and the important progress attained, it has not been possible to comprehensively protect the rights of the displaced population or to counteract the grave deterioration of their conditions of vulnerability, primarily due to the precariousness of institutional capacity to implement State policies and due to insufficient resource allocation.242 183. In the instant case, some of the next of kin displaced from Mapiripán have been identified in the proceeding before this Court. In this regard, the Court decided in this Judgment that non-identification of all the next of kin of the victims is due to the very circumstances of the massacre and to the deep fear they have suffered (supra paras. 96.47, 96.174 and 140 to 146). This same dynamics has made it impossible to know exactly how many next of kin were displaced in this case, for 240 See statement rendered as testimony before a notary public (affidavit) by Yur Mary Herrera Contreras on February 4, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4524). 241 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 5163). 242 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, pages 5166 to 5174).