were no records showing that C.A., B.A. and her children had gone to Mexico, other than the record of B.A.’s departure to Mexico in 2002. It added that there is evidence that she was back in the country in 2005. Therefore, a contradiction existed between what the representatives stated, and what really happened, since the representatives were not telling the truth. The State also held that the alleged victims could not claim the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention since they had refused the protection offered by the State. As to the alleged violation of their right to personal integrity due to the supposed displacement suffered, the State argued that it “cannot be held responsible for the decisions taken by the family in search of better conditions.” B) Considerations of the Court 165. The Court has stated that freedom of movement is an essential condition for the free development of a person. 269 The Court also agrees with the position expressed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 27, which establishes that the right of movement and of residence consists, inter alia, of the following: a) the right of all those who are lawfully within a State to move freely within it, and to choose their place of residence, and b) the right of a person to enter his or her own country and to remain in it. Furthermore, the enjoyment of this right does not depend on any particular purpose or reason for the person wishing to move around or remain in a place. 270 Similarly, the Convention protects a person’s right not to be forcibly displaced within a State Party, and not to be expelled from the territory of the State in which he or she is lawfully present. 271 166. The Court has pointed out that the rights to freedom of movement and residence may be violated either formally or by de facto restrictions, if the State has not established the conditions or provided the means to exercise these rights. 272 This occurs, for example, when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the necessary guarantees to ensure that he can move around and live freely in the territory concerned, 273 even when the threats and harassment originate from non-state actors. 274 Similarly, the Court has indicated that the failure to effectively investigate acts of violence can propitiate or perpetuate exile or enforced displacement. 275 167. Furthermore, in agreement with the international community, the Court has reaffirmed that the obligation of the State of origin to protect the rights of displaced persons involves not only the duty to adopt measures of prevention, but also to provide the conditions required to allow for a voluntary, dignified and safe return to their usual place of residence or their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country. To this end, their full participation in the planning and management of their return or reinsertion must be guaranteed. 276 269 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 110, and Case Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 162. 270 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra, para. 110, and Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No.111, para 115. See, United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27 of November 2, 1999, paras. 1, 4, 5 and 19. 271 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre supra, para. 188, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No.270, para. 219. 272 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 175. 273 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para 139, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para 175. 274 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 162. 275 Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Relatives v. Colombia, supra, para 220. 276 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012.Series C No. 252, para. 188, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, supra, para. 220. 52