115 which reason the Court can only assess this situation with regard to those who have proven their situation in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the Court states its deep concern regarding the fact that there were possibly many other persons who faced that situation and were not identified in the proceeding before the Court. 184. The Court also appreciates the fact that some of the next of kin of the victims who have been identified, that is: Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Luz Mery Pinzón López, the family of Mariela Contreras Cruz and the Valencia Sanmiguel family, have received help or support from the State due to their situation as displaced persons (supra para. 96.65). 185. On the other hand, the representatives reported at the end of the proceeding that there are at least 10 lawsuits “filed by next of kin of victims regarding the facts in Mapiripán, which are being processed under administrative law,” as well as information on displaced persons “not represented by the Colectivo de Abogados [“José Alvear Restrepo”] before the administrative law courts in Colombia, and it [has] learned that they have received humanitarian aid due to the facts in Mapiripán”. The Court does not know the reasons why the representatives only informed the Court of these other administrative-law proceedings at the end of the proceeding before this Court, even though based on the information supplied, most of them apparently began in 1999. The representatives did not explain, either, the reasons why they did not represent those persons who are allegedly next of kin of victims of the massacre. On the other hand, the statements of witnesses under domestic venue provide the names of other persons who apparently were also displaced as a consequence of the facts, such as Jesús Antonio Morales, Nery Alfonso Ortiz, Ana Betulia Alfonso, Luz Helena Molina, Ana Tulia Agudelo, Norberto Cortés, Margarita Franco Ramírez and Leonardo Iván Cortés Novoa. Furthermore, as evidence requested by the Court to facilitate adjudication, the State submitted a list of approximately 400 persons who have been displaced from Mapiripán, in which it does not specify who are next of kin of victims of the massacre. Lacking this information, the Court has not referred to these other persons as next of kin of victims or as displaced persons and said situation will not be taken into account in this chapter, without detriment to their being able to claim their rights before the national authorities. 186. In conclusion, the Court notes that the situation of forced internal displacement faced by the next of kin of the victims cannot be separated from the other violations found in the instant Judgment. The circumstances of the instant case and the special and complex situation of vulnerability that affects said persons include but also transcend the content of the protection that the States must provide in the framework of Article 22 of the Convention. Displacement of these next of kin in fact originates in the lack of protection during the massacre and reveals its effects in the violations of their right to humane treatment (supra paras. 143, 144 and 146) and in the consequences of non-fulfillment of the duty to investigate the facts, which have led to partial impunity (infra paras. 216 to 240). Furthermore, the Court addressed the violation of Article 19 of said treaty due to lack of protection of those who were children when they were displaced or who are still minors (supra para. 161 to 163). This set of components leads the Court to find that, beyond the provisions of Article 22 of the Convention, the situation of displacement addressed here has