85 291. The petitioners have also informed the IACHR that due to threats from members of paramilitary groups, Ms. Mery Naranjo was forced to leave her neighborhood several times, to seek refuge in different places in order to protect her life and personal integrity, then she settled back in her home on a permanent basis in 2005.414 The proven facts show that her situation of insecurity became worse after her detention on November 12, 2002 and after witnessing the murder of Ms. Yarce.415 She and her next of kin also were the beneficiaries of precautionary and provisional measures from the IACHR and the Court, both of which have noted were inadequately implemented.416 The petitioners have stated to the IACHR that Ms. Naranjo never received any humanitarian aid from the authorities during the periods of time she was displaced.417 292. The State has only submitted information to the IACHR on the investigations that were undertaken to punish those responsible for these forced displacements. However, it has not submitted any information which would allow the Commission to conclude that the aforementioned victims have ever received any humanitarian assistance as a result of their displacement; that it has adopted any measures to alleviate their living conditions in the receiving communities; or that it has ever ordered any measures of protection needed to ensure their safe return to Comuna 13. The IACHR finds that it does not have any information from the State to allow it to conclude that the measures it adopted were sufficient or adequate to turn around the situation of vulnerability of the displaced defenders and their next of kin in the matter that is the subject of examination. 293. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State is also responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 5 and 1.1, to the detriment of Mmes Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo, and their next of kin, as identified in paragraph 282, footnote 384. 4. Forced displacement and protection of the family 294. Both the Court and the Commission have pronounced over the dual nature of the right of the family enshrined in Article 17 of the American Convention, which must encompass the State’s positive obligation to protect, as well as its negative obligation to refrain from engaging in arbitrary interference or abuse in this sphere.418 It is such a basic right of the American Convention that it cannot be derogated from even in the most extreme circumstances.419 414 Observations of the Petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al – Case 12.595 dated May 3 2012, pars. 6-7. 415 Annex 72. Statement of Mery Naranjo, Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, December 13, 2004, Criminal proceeding on the murder of Mrs. Ana Teresa Yarce. 416 Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Matter Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, Colombia, November 25, 2010, par. 53; IACHR, Request for Expansion of Provisional Measures to the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights in reference to the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, Colombia, March 3, 2011, par. 2. 417 Observations of the Petitioners in reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al – Case 12.595 dated May 3 2012, pars. 6-7. 418 IA Court of HR, Case Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 55; and Case of Escher et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, par. 113; IACHR, Merits Report No. 64/11, Case 12.573, Marino López et al (Operation Genesis), Colombia, March 31, 2011, par. 316. 419 IACHR, Merits Report No. 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala), January 19, 2001, par. 40.