81 281. The Commission is aware of the huge challenge that it poses for the Colombian State to confront the serious situation of internal displacement and recognizes the efforts that have been made in this regard. However, the Commission reiterates that in this particular case, the State had a heightened obligation to prevent and protect, being that Mmes Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo were at particular risk of violations of their human rights based on two factors: their sex and their activities as defenders, in a context of armed conflict in which infringements against this group of the population are widely known by the State, and it has been duly alerted to the situation by the international community.385 The Commission believes in this instance that the State did not adopt reasonable and sufficient measures of prevention and protection in order to remedy the context that caused the displacement of Mmes Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera, and Naranjo. The IACHR finds that the failures of the State to prevent the forced displacement — understood to be a form of violence against women — violated not only its obligations under Article 22 of the American Convention, but its obligation to not discriminate and to respect and ensure their rights pursuant to this principle under Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 282. In light of these considerations, the Commission finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, in connection with its obligation to not discriminate as provided for in Article 1.1, to the detriment of Mrs. Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo, and their next of kin.386 283. The IACHR clarifies, nonetheless, that the circumstances of the instant case and the manifestations of human rights violations that affect internally displaced persons in Colombia go beyond the content of the due protection by the States in the framework of Article 22 of the Convention.387 In keeping with this parameter and based on the particular circumstances of this case, the Commission proceeds to consider the particular impact of the forced displacement on the rights to personal in the Colombian Armed Conflict, Mesa de Trabajo Mujer y Conflicto Armado, First Report 2001, Mesa de Trabajo Mujer y Conflicto Armado, April 2001, pgs. 7-9. 385 IACHR, United Nations, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, 2002 Annual Report, February 24, 2003, pars. 88-91; United Nations, Report submitted by Mrs. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its causes and consequences: Mission to Colombia (November 1-7, 2001), Visit to Colombia, March 11, 2002, Executive Summary, pars. 59-86; IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9, rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Chapter VI, Internal Forced Displacement, par. 1, section C, par. 26; Mesa de Trabajo Mujer y Conflicto Armado, First Report 2001, Report on Violence against Women and Girls in the Colombian Armed Conflict, Mesa de Trabajo Mujer y Conflicto Armado, First Report 2001, Mesa de Trabajo Mujer y Conflicto Armado, April 2001, pgs. 7-9. 386 The petitioners identify the accompanying family members in the displacement of Mrs. Rúa, Ospina and Mosquera as follows: Mrs. Rúa - Gustavo de Jesús Tobón (permanent companion), Bárbara del Sol (daughter), and Úrsula Manuela (daughter) y Valentina (daughter). Mrs. Ospina - Oscar Julio Hoyos Oquendo (husband), Edid Yazmín (son), Oscar Darío (son), and Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina (daughter). Mrs. Mosquera - Hilda Milena Villa Mosquera (daughter), and Lubín Alfonso Villa Mosquera (grandson, deceased). The petitioners note that Mrs. Naranjo departed alone. See, Observations of the Petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al – Case 12.595 dated May 3, 2012, pg. 7(b). 387 par. 186. IA Court of HR, Case of the “Massacre of Mapiripán” v. Colombia. Judgment September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134,