94 Constitutional Court, that “it is not official registration by governmental agencies that establishes an individual’s status as a displaced person, but the mere fact of having been forced to abandon his usual place of residence.”205 In this regard, the Constitutional Court has stated that “an unconstitutional situation exists in relation to the displaced population owing to the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the gravity of the violations of constitutionally-recognized and legally-established rights and, on the other hand, the amount of resources effectively devoted to ensuring the genuine enjoyment of those rights and the institutional capacity to implement the corresponding constitutional and legal mandates.”206 * 215. In light of the above-mentioned criteria and context, in the instant case the Court will examine whether the State has incurred in a violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the inhabitants of La Granja and El Aro. 216. It has been proved that the massacres that occurred in La Granja and El Aro, and also the damage suffered as a result of the theft of the livestock and the destruction of the property of the inhabitants, added to the fear of similar events recurring, the intimidation, and the threats received by some of them from the paramilitary group, led to the internal displacement of many families (supra para. 125(110)). 217. In the case of La Granja, 31 member of the family group of Héctor Hernán Correa García, who was executed by the paramilitary group, were forced to displace to other municipalities of Antioquia, and one of the next of kin even had to leave the country for good because he received threats after denouncing the events.207 218. Likewise, it has been proved that the paramilitary group destroyed and set fire to 80% of the houses and property in El Aro, obliging 671 inhabitants to abandon their homes and places of work (supra para. 125(79)). 219. It is worth noting that, according to the ruling issued by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for Human Rights on September 30, 2002 (supra para. 125(100)), members of the Army took part in these acts by “collaborating with and knowingly – in other words, intentionally – facilitating the incursion made by the self-defense group during 18 days[;] an incursion that culminated in the violent death and illtreatment of the victims [and] that forced more than 1,200 peasants from the zone to displace towards the municipalities of Ituango and Valdivia.”208 205 Cf. Judgment T025 of January 22, 2004, issued by the Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court (file of attachments to the brief answering the application, tome III, Appendix 30, ff. 4363 to 4747hh) 206 Cf. Judgment T025 of January 22, 2004, issued by the Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court (file of attachments to the brief answering the application, tome III, Appendix 30, ff. 4363 to 4747hh). 207 Cf. statement made during a public hearing held during the sixty-eighth regular session on September 21, 2005; the name of the witness is kept confidential as requested by the parties (supra paras. 45 and 111). 208 Cf. ruling issued by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for Human Rights on September 30, 2002 (file of attachments to the application, tome III, ff. 1310 to 1392).