96 Commission also stated in the application that the “surviving next of kin of the victims who were executed became victims of displacement.”213 Additionally, the Commission requested that, as a measure of reparation, the Court should order the Colombian State “to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the return to their place of origin of the victims of the incursion, forcibly displaced by the violence.”214 Moreover, there are the testimonies and expert opinions given in both the domestic sphere and before the Court, and a list relating to a census of the Ituango displaced persons, all of which mention the identity of the said displaced persons. Lastly, the foregoing is reinforced by the list of persons that was forwarded by the representatives as useful evidence presented at the Court’s request. 225. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the forced displacement of the persons mentioned in Appendix IV of this judgment. 226. The representatives mentioned other alleged victims of forced displacement who are not included in Appendix IV of this judgment. They indicated that “Leidy Carvajal” and “Viviana Carvajal” were victims of forced displacement; but, based on the body of evidence, the Court considers that both names refer to a single person called Leidy Viviana Carvajal, who is considered a victim in this case. 227. In addition, the representatives stated in their requests and arguments brief that Luis Ufrán Areiza Posso, Jael Esther Arroyave Posso, Eligio Pérez Aguirre, Lucelly Amparo Posso Múnera and María Esther Jaramillo Torres were victims of forced displacement. Since the Court does not have any evidence in this respect, it does not consider that these people are victims of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. 228. The representatives also indicated that Iraima, Deicy and Nohelia Díaz Pérez, Kelly Tatiana and Sergio Harbey Osorio Díaz, and Luis Alberto Carmona Díaz were victims of displacement. However, according to the evidence provided, these persons lived in Barranquilla at the time of the events, so the Court does not consider them victims of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. 229. Likewise, the representatives stated that the following were victims of displacement: Jael Rocío Mendoza Posso and Beatriz Amalia Mendoza Posso, siblings of Guillermo Andrés Mendoza Posso, who was executed in El Aro, and also Leidy Julieta Hidalgo Mendoza, this victim’s niece. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of Rodrigo Alberto Mendoza Posso, the victim’s brother, at the time of the facts Jael Rocío lived in Medellín, and Beatriz Amalia and Leidy Julieta Hidalgo Mendoza in Puerto Valdivia, so the Court does not consider them victims of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. 230. The representatives also stated that Yuliana (or Luliana) Patricia Mora Gutiérrez, niece of Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, who was executed in El Aro, was a victim of forced displacement. However, according to the evidence provided, she 213 Paragraph 133 of the Inter-American Commission’s application. See also paragraph 134 of the Inter-American Commission’s application. 214 Paragraph 154, subparagraph (vii) of the Inter-American Commission’s application.