possible to ascertain that the State offered to provide Mrs. B.A. with three types of protection consisting of: the assignation of personal protection, protection at a fixed place and perimeter surveillance, which would be provided by police agents. 287 176. For the Court, two aspects are fundamental in relation to the alleged measures of security and protection offered by the State. First, the specific offer was made in 2008, that is, at least three years after family A was forced to leave. Therefore, during that period, it is clear that the State failed in its duty to provide the necessary conditions to enable those individuals to return voluntarily to their places of residence. Secondly, the information provided by the representatives makes it clear that in 2008 the State offered, at least, to “assign personal protection, protection in a fixed position and perimeter surveillance” (supra para. 175). The evidence does not indicate how those measures were to be implemented in terms of time, means and place, as well as their duration. Consequently, it is not possible to determine whether these measures were intended to facilitate a voluntary, dignified and safe return to their usual place of residence, or to guarantee their protection at the place where they stayed outside the village of Cruce de la Esperanza, or how they would guarantee the victims’ full participation in planning and arranging their return or reinsertion. Nor is it clear whether these measures were to be implemented only in favor of B.A., or whether they would include her mother C.A., her children L.A. and N.A., her sister E.A., and her sister’s children, J.A. and K.A. 177. The lack of evidence to dispute the ineffectiveness of the State’s alleged offer of measures of security and protection, together with B.A.’s statement and the absence of information by the State, allow the Court conclude that the State did not adopt sufficient and effective measures to guarantee the members of family A, who were forcibly displaced, a safe and dignified return to their usual places of residence or voluntary resettlement in another part of the country, ensuring their full participation in the planning and management of a process of return or reinsertion. 178. In conclusion, given that B.A., her mother C.A., her children L.A. and N.A., and her sister E.A. and her children, J.A. and K.A., were forced to leave their usual places of residence and move away owing to the particular situation of danger they faced, the lack of protective measures and the fear they felt, and that the State failed in its obligation to provide the necessary conditions to facilitate their voluntary, dignified and safe return to their usual places of residence, or their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country, the Court declares the violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Moreover, given that there were children among these victims of enforced displacement, namely N.A., J.A. and K.A. (supra para. 169), the Court concludes that the violations in their regard also occurred in relation to Article 19 of the Convention in application del principle iura novit curia. 179. As to F.A. and G.A., the children of A.A., who allegedly remained in Mexico because they were unable to fulfill their plan to return to Guatemala, in the Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) the Court declared the violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention to the detriment of those individuals, due to the fact that they were unable to return and that their displacement continued after March 9, 1987. Thus, the Court has already concluded that the State “failed to comply with its obligation to provide the necessary conditions to facilitate a voluntary, dignified and safe return” for those victims. 288 180. The Court also considers that in this case it is not necessary to examine the arguments of the Commission and the representatives regarding the possible impacts of displacement on the personal integrity of Mr. A.A.’s relatives. The possible effects generated by that displacement will be taken into account in establishing the corresponding reparations. 287 Cf. Brief of June 6, 2008 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 386); Brief of May 6, 2009 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 294); Brief of June 23, 2009 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 298), and Brief of August 8, 2011 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 37). 288 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 308. 55