83 287. Based on the findings of fact, Ms. Rúa and her husband and their three daughters continue to live in a situation of displacement and in very precarious economic conditions.395 When she was displaced, she had to quit her job at a funeral services company and leave all of her personal property behind.396 Her companion has not been able to get a steady job, and she is currently unemployed.397 Moreover, Ms. Rúa Figueroa’s request to be entered into the National Single Registry of the Displaced Population was denied on August 9, 2002398 and her request to revisit the case was denied on October 10, 2006.399 In response, Ms. Rúa filed several motions and suits for constitutional relief (tutela) to seek clarification on her registry situation, and to reverse the decision to not be included, but these efforts were unsuccessful.400 288. In the course of the mentioned process, Ms. Rúa also received contradictory information from the Social Solidarity Network (Acción Social) regarding her non-inclusion in the registry, as was noted by the 17th Civil Circuit Court of Medellin on August 24, 2010 in its ruling on the constitutional relief suit, which favored Mrs. Rua.401 The Colombian State, for its part, has not submitted any information to the IACHR to clarify the reasoning behind the decision to provide partial financial support to Ms. Rúa Figueroa on April 16, 2007, and on why non-inclusion in the Single National Register continues in effect, thus preventing her from availing herself of all benefits for the displaced as provided for in Law 387.402 289. Similarly, Ms. Ospina has had to endure displacement at times on her own, because her husband and two children returned in order to protect their home from potential invasion by the paramilitary forces.403 She testified to the IACHR how her life changed for good after the displacement, 395 Annex 3. Statement of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012. 396 Annex 3. Statement of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012. 397 Annex 3. Statement of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012. 398 Annex 5. Decision No. 050012342, Social Solidarity Network, Municipality of Medellin, Department of Antioquia, August 9, 2002. Annex to the Observations of the petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa – Comuna 13 – dated March 25, 2010. 399 Annex 7. Observations of Social Solidarity Network, October 10, 2006. Annex ____. Observations of the petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa – Comuna 13 – dated March 25, 2010. 400 Annex 10. Tutela proceeding brought by Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa against Social Solidarity Network, August 6, 2010 before the Civil Circuit Court Judge (Duty Judge), Medellin. Annex 4. Observations of the Petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al – Case 12.595 dated May 3, 2012. 401 Annex 10. Tutela suit, Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa, Social Solidarity Network, Judgment No. 305, August 24. 2010, 17 Civil Circuit Court of Medellin. th 402 Ministry of Foreign Relations, Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Observations on the Matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al, Case 12.595, April 17. 2007; Social Solidarity Network, Granting of Humanitarian Aid to Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa, April 15, 2007; Exercising of Right of Petition, David Medina Hernández, October 26, 2007. Annex 4. Observations of the Petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al – Case 12.595 dated May 3 2012. 403 Annex 15. Statement of Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012.