41 has been destroyed for [him and his family], and [they] go through life barely surviving. The situation is not appropriate for their return.”98 138. In this regard, the Court has indicated in its case law that the right to freedom of movement and residence, established in Article 22(1) of the Convention, is an essential condition for the free development of a person.99 This article contemplates, inter alia, the following: (a) the right of all persons lawfully within a State to move freely within that State and to choose their place of residence; and (b) the right of such persons to enter, to remain in, or to leave the State’s territory without any unlawful interference. Thus, the enjoyment of this right does not depend on any specific purpose or reason for the person who wishes to move or to remain in a particular place.100 139. In addition, the Court has indicated that the right to freedom of movement and residence can be violated by de facto restrictions if the State has not established the conditions or provided the means to allow that right to be exercised.101 In this regard, the right to freedom of movement and residence may be affected when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the guarantees necessary to allow him/her to move freely and reside in the territory in question, even when those threats and harassments are carried out by non-State actors. 140. Finding themselves away from their own country, without being able or wanting to return home owing to a well-founded fear of persecution arising from the facts of the instant case, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his direct nuclear family became refugees. They were obliged to seek international protection to ensure respect for their human rights and avoid being returned, against their will, to a country where they had and have good reason to fear for their lives. 141. The Court observes that Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his direct nuclear family found themselves in a vulnerable situation that prevented them from freely exercising their right to freedom of movement and residence, partly because the State did not offer them the guarantees necessary to enable them to move freely and reside in Colombian territory. Furthermore, their status as refugees has ruptured the social fabric that united their family, obliging them to lose contact not only with their country, but also with their affective ties within it. In this regard, Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo, a friend of the Jaramillo Correa family, testified that the greatest emotional impact of the family’s exile was that “not only did it destroy [its] financial patrimony, but also broke up a united family, whose members worked together. For the same reason, they had to disperse in different directions, abandoning their properties […].”102 142. In its acquiescence, the State acknowledged as victims of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and, as part of his nuclear family, Gloria 98 Testimony given by the witness Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, supra note 97. 99 Cf. Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 206, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 168. 100 Cf. United Nations. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27, of 2 November 1999, paras. 1, 4, 8 and 19; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 99, para. 115; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 206, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 168. 101 The Moiwana Community v. Surinam. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 119 and 120; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 210, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 170. 102 Statement made by the witness, Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo, supra note 74.