91 (h) The public policy has been assisted by “the high courts and the Constitutional Court and the Council of State [which contribute with] their case law to consolidate the extent and scope of the rights of the victims, especially the right to protection, based on the principle of solidarity as an obligation of society, since Colombia is a State where the good of society and the rule of law prevail”; (i) The system established by Act 37 of 1997 allowed: 1) “the precise identification of those displaced from their homes”; (2) “the elaboration of official records with information on age, sex, level of education, place of origin of the displaced, reasons for the displacement, etcetera”; (3) “the establishment of explicit channels for those affected by displacement to be able to claim from the State special measures of protection, emergency humanitarian assistance, and support for return or relocation, among other matters”; (j) Since it “has not failed to comply with any obligation arising from Articles 8 and 25” of the Convention, the “consequential” violation of Article 22 thereof is “groundless,” particularly because the proceedings that “are underway [...] have produced satisfactory results”; (k) It provided assistance to the displaced through the Army. This is confirmed by the statement made by Luis Humberto Mendoza before officials of the Prosecutor’s Office in 2002 when he stated that the Army helped them “with mattresses and food” in Puerto Valdivia; and (l) The Jaramillo family “was given the use of communications equipment and was provided with tickets for air travel, travel expenses and financial support for relocation.” The Court’s findings 204. The Court will examine the alleged violation of Article 22 of the Convention to the detriment of the persons displaced from La Granja and El Aro. 205. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 22 of the American Convention establish that: 1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. 4. The exercise of the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest. […] 206. The Court has stated that freedom of movement and residence is an essential condition for the free development of a person194 and consists, inter alia, of the right 194 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 168; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 12, para. 110; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115.