39 The most significant emotional impact is that [...] it broke up the family, which had been a united family that worked together. For the same reason, they had to go in different directions, abandoning their property.93 The principal characteristic of the family had been its unity, always, all together in their financial and social activities.94 132. In this regard, the Court observes that, although the above statements refer to the emotional impact that “the family” of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa supposedly suffered as a result of the facts of this case, these statements are very general and do not make specific reference to the specific harm that the facts of the case allegedly caused to the living conditions of each one of the next of kin of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa who were not included in the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. Accordingly, given that no evidence has been provided, for example, about the specific circumstances of their respective relationship with him, of the additional suffering that they may have endured as a result of the violations perpetrated in the instant case, or as a result of the subsequent acts or omissions of State authorities in relation to the facts of the case, the Court finds that the violation of the right to personal integrity has not been proved to the detriment of: Alejandro Jaramillo Mejía, Ana Catalina Hoyos Jaramillo, Andrés Felipe Ochoa Jaramillo, César Augusto Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Diego Alejandro Ochoa Jaramillo, Gabriela Gómez Jaramillo, Jorge Mario Jaramillo Gutiérrez, José Miguel Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Juan Camilo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Juan Gonzalo Jaramillo Mejía, Juliana Jaramillo Tobón, Luis Jairo Jaramillo Gutiérrez, Luisa María Gómez Jaramillo, María Isabel Jaramillo Mejía, Oscar Fernando Hoyos Jaramillo, Luis Santiago Jaramillo Tobón and Victoria Alejandra Gómez Jaramillo. VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2295 (FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 133. The Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his family, since “as a result of the death threats he received following the events of February 27, 1998, due to his participation as a witness in their investigation and in the legal proceedings, and because the State had placed him in a situation of vulnerability and defenselessness, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, together with his family, suffered forced displacement within Colombia and, subsequently, exile in another country.” In addition, the representatives stated that “Mr. Jaramillo Correa became the victim of constant threats and harassment by paramilitary groups because he testified about the events, physically described the perpetrators of the murder, and was available to assist the investigators so that the crime would not go unpunished.” In this regard, the representatives indicated that “[a]t first, [Mr. Jaramillo Correa and his family] had to leave Ituango, the municipality where they had their home and led a decent life in stable conditions, since it was the place where they carried out 93 Statement made by the witness, Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo, supra note 74. 94 Statement made by the witness, María Amanda Correa Zuleta, supra note 75. 95 The relevant part of Article 22 stipulates: 1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. […]