victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the necessary guarantees to enable that person to move about and reside freely in the territory in question, even when the threats and harassment come from non-State actors.265 176. In addition, the Court observes that the said Guiding Principles establish obligations for the States regarding the return, resettlement and reintegration of internally displaced peoples, inter alia: Principle 28(1). Competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well as provide the means, which allow internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. […] Principle 28(2). Special efforts should be made to ensure the full participation of internally displaced persons in the planning and management of their return or resettlement and reintegration. […] Principle 29(2). Competent authorities have the duty and responsibility to assist returned and/or resettled internally displaced persons to recover, to the extent possible, their property and possessions which they left behind or were dispossessed of upon their displacement. When recovery of such property and possessions is not possible, competent authorities shall provide or assist these persons in obtaining appropriate compensation or another form of just reparation. 177. Also, in keeping with its consistent case law on indigenous matters, in which it has recognized that the relationship of the indigenous peoples with the land is essential for maintaining their cultural structures and for their ethnic and material survival,266 the Court considers that the forced displacement of indigenous peoples outside their community or way from its members, can place them in a situation of special vulnerability, which “owing to its destructive effects on the ethnic and cultural fabric […], generates a clear risk of the cultural or physical extinction of the indigenous peoples.”267 Hence, it is essential that the States adopt specific measures of protection268 considering the particular characteristics of the indigenous peoples, as well as their customary law, values, practices and customs269 to prevent and reverse the effects of that situation. B.1. The continuing displacement of the community of Río Negro 178. As previously established (supra para. 82), the members of the Río Negro community were forced to flee their ancestral lands after the massacres perpetrated against them in 1980 and 1982. In addition, the Court has accredited that most of the individuals who survived the said massacres and the subsequent persecution by the State were resettled by the Government, as the State itself has recognized (supra para. 17(g)), in the 265 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 139, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 142. 266 The Court has determined that the culture of the members of the indigenous communities corresponds to a specific way of being, seeing and acting in the world, constituted on the basis of their close relationship with their traditional lands and natural resources, not only because these are their main means of subsistence, but also because they constitute an integral component of their cosmovision, religious beliefs and, consequently, their cultural identity. Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, para. 135, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 147. 267 Ruling 004/009 issued on January 26, 2009, Constitutional Court of Colombia, part 4, p. 11. Available at: http://www.acnur.org/biblioteca/pdf/6981.pdf. 268 Cf. Guiding principles on internally displaced persons, supra, Principle 9. 269 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, para. 63, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 147. 67