97 lived in Medellín at the time of the events, so the Court does not consider her a victim of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. 231. In addition, the representatives stated that Andrés Felipe Restrepo Mendoza was a victim of forced displacement. However, according to the evidence provided, he lived in Medellín at the time of the events; therefore the Court does not consider him a victim of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. 232. The representatives also indicated that the following persons were victims of forced displacement: Gerardo Jaramillo “and children,” Luz Marina Guerra, Juan José Jaramillo Posada, Ángela Patricia Jiménez, Gloria Emilse Jiménez, José Gilberto López Areiza, Edilia Rosa Martínez García, Julio Alveiro Pérez, Abdón Emilio Posada, Aura Posada, Danilo de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo and Edier Zapata George, and also Eliana Sirley, Geny Marisol, Luis Norbey, Luz Albeny and Niver Orley, all with the last names Tejada Quintero. However, the Court has no testimonial or documentary evidence in this regard, so that, in the instant case, they will not be considered victims of the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 357 of this judgment. * * * 233. The Court deems it necessary to state, as it has previously (supra para. 155), that human rights treaties are living instruments whose interpretation must evolve with the times and, in particular, actual living conditions.215 234. In this regard, the Court observes that the situation of internal forced displacement endured by the victims in this case cannot be separated from the other violations declared in this judgment. The circumstances of the case and the complex and special vulnerability of those who were displaced includes but transcends the content of the protection that States must provide in the context of Article 22 of the Convention. Indeed, the displacement originated from the lack of protection during the massacres, due not only to the violations of the right to life (Article 4 of the Convention) (supra paras. 126 to 138), to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention) (infra paras. 252 to 279) and to personal liberty (Article 7 of the Convention) (supra paras. 149 to 153 and 168), but also to the theft of the livestock and the destruction of the housing, in violation of the right to property (Article 21 of the Convention) (supra paras. 173 to 188) and the right to privacy (Article 11(2) of the Convention) (supra paras. 189 to 200). All these violated rights lead the Court to consider that, in addition to the provisions of Article 22 of the Convention, the situation of displacement examined has also affected the right of the victims and their next of kin to a decent life,216 in the terms indicated above, in relation to the 215 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 117; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 174, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 174, para. 165. Likewise, cf. The right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 174, para. 114. 216 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 186; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 174, paras. 162 and 163; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 12, para. 164; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 164, para. 191.