98 State’s failure to comply with the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights embodied in these articles. * * * 235. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the seven hundred and two (702) persons displaced from El Aro and La Granja, who are indicated in Appendix IV of this judgment. XIII ARTICLE 19 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHTS OF THE CHILD) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 4(1), 5(1) AND 1(1) THEREOF The Commission’s arguments 236. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the child, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, who was 14 years old at the time of his death, the Commission stated that: (a) Article 19 of the Convention, more than a mere interpretative device, imposes special obligations on the State; (b) He was not provided with the special measures of protection that his situation of ‘vulnerability,’ based on his age, required”; and (c) The State agencies specifically responsible for the protection of children did not intervene to prevent or clarify the events. The representatives’ arguments 237. In relation to Article 19 of the Convention, the representatives indicated that: (a) Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres was “arbitrarily deprived of his right to life by the paramilitary group while he was performing agricultural labors. This paramilitary group acted with the acquiescence and collaboration of agents of law enforcement bodies”; (b) Not only did the Colombian State fail to guarantee the special measures of protection to which, as a child, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres had a right, but it also failed to comply with the obligation to respect them; (c) In this case, given the circumstances in which the facts took place, the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child should be underscored; they establish special measures of protection for children who live in areas where there is armed conflict; (d) Based on the iura novit curia principle, the Court can rule on the violation produced with regard to the grandchildren of one of the alleged victims and “the children who lived in the district of El Aro and who were obliged to undergo the horror, anguish and suffering of the joint incursion of the paramilitary group and the law enforcement personnel”; (e) The allegations concerning Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo “are applicable to all the other children who were direct victims of the incursion by the