72 8.1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her [...] family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. 9.1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best 340 interests of the child [...] 321. The Court has established that due to the importance of the right to protection of the 341 family, the State has the duty to favor the development and strengthening of the family nucleus. In addition, both the Inter-American Court and the European Court have recognized that the mutual enjoyment of cohabitation between parents and children constitutes a fundamental element in family 342 life. 322. For its part, Article 42 of the Constitution of Colombia establishes that the State "and society shall guarantee the complete protection of the family." The Constitutional Court of Colombia has recognized that the destruction of communities and families by forced displacement not only affects the community and family structure of the Afro-descendant communities, but also above all the breakdown in the mechanisms for the construction of collective and individual life plans for each one of the 343 generations. 323. In the light of this, the Commission will analyze the right to protection of the family contained in Articles 17.1, 11.2 and 19 of the American Convention. Within these parameters, the Commission will consider the State's responsibility with respect to its obligation to protect the family. 324. From the findings of fact, the Commission observes that due to the forced displacement, the families of the Cacarica communities were obliged to leave their homes and resettle as displaced persons for four years in dire humanitarian conditions. During the move, they lost their families, and since they moved to three different settlements (Turbo, Bocas del Atrato, and Bahía Cupica) some families were split up and were separated for four years. In addition, given the living conditions in these settlements, the displaced were deprived of living the type of life they enjoyed in their homes, in accordance with their traditional customs of Afro-descendant communities, which represents a breach of the right to protection of the family. The State, for its part, supported the September 2000 family reintegration phase of the displaced community settled in Bahía Cupica with their family and friends settled in Turbo, with the transfer of 201 individuals. 325. Without prejudice to the fact that the State has been found responsible for generating the displacement under analysis, the Commission observes that once the displacement has taken place, the State did not adopt measures in order to achieve a swift return process and that this situation continued for four years. 326. Consequently, in the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 11.2, 17.1 and 1.1 to the prejudice of members of the families in the Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and 340 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989. 341 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 62. 342 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 72. See also: Eur. Ct. H.R., Case of Buchberger v. Austria, Application No. 32899/96, Judgment of December 20, 2001, para. 35; Case of T and K v. Finland, Application No. 25702/94, Judgment of July 12, 2001, para. 151; and Case of Johansen v. Norway, Application No. 17383/90, Judgment of August 7, 1996, para. 52. 343 Annex 64. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Annex Order 005-2009. Protection of the Fundamental Rights of the Afrodescendant population victims of forced displacement, in the context of the unconstitutional state of affairs declared in Judgment T025 de 2004. En: http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/Autos/2009/A005-09.htm.