XI RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE RÍO NEGRO COMMUNITY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 169. The Commission argued that the State had violated Article 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Río Negro community who survived the massacres perpetrated against the community. In this regard, it maintained that the said individuals “were forced to abandon their village, leaving their […] lands destroyed or forsaken, and to move, first, to neighboring communities or to the mountains […],” where “they lived for several months or even years, fighting to survive the threats and persecution, hunger [and] lack of access to health and education services.” In addition, it indicated that, starting in 1983, the Río Negro community members who survived the massacres were resettled in the village of Pacux, “in precarious living conditions [and] on land that was inadequate for agriculture […].” The Commission also stressed that the great majority of the survivors of the massacres had not returned to the village of Río Negro “not only [because of] the threats and persecution to which they were subjected and the failure to investigate the facts,” but also because the Chixoy dam flooded most of their land. According to the Commission, these facts took place within a general context of forced displacement in Guatemala that mainly affected the indigenous population and that was a direct consequence of the internal armed conflict. 170. The representatives endorsed the Commission’s arguments and also alleged that “the consequences of the persecution and forced displacement experienced [by the survivors of the massacres perpetrated against the population of Río Negro …] go beyond the violent expulsion from their land and the plundering of this land, [… but also have] psychological, cultural, social and even religious dimensions.” In addition, they indicated that, “[t]o this day, the survivors of the community of Río Negro live in [the Pacux settlement] in overcrowded conditions, on lots on which it is physically impossible to carry out their traditional activities such as fishing and agriculture […].” According to the representatives, the community’s voluntary return to its traditional lands is impossible, on the one hand, because “most of the fertile land of the survivors […] and their ceremonial and religious centers were totally flooded” by the Chixoy dam. And, added to this, “the only access to the territories where [the Río Negro community] was located […] is guarded by State security” forces, and a “prior administrative formality” is required to obtain INDE authorization. This “has greatly limited the movement of those originally from Río Negro […],” in particular because of the financial cost of that formality. Moreover, they indicated that it was impossible to reach the said land without hiring boats or canoes, the cost of which “most of the survivors of the Río Negro massacres are unable to afford.” 171. As indicated previously (supra paras. 17(g) and 25), the State “partially acknowledged” the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22 of the Convention, because the members of the Río Negro community were relocated in the Pacux settlement after the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. 65