88 similar situation in Comuna 13 and has had to be displaced on her own several times, as she was unable to do so with the members of her family for economic reasons.431 303. The IACHR reiterates that the positive obligation set forth in Article 17 to protect the family during forced displacement, is extended to generating conditions to ensure the safe return of victims to their original homes; and this obligation has not been honored by the Colombian State in the matter under consideration. 304. By virtue of these considerations, the ICHR finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 22, in connection with Articles 17.1 and 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Ms. Mosquera, Rúa, Ospina, and Naranjo, and their next of kin.432 5. Forced displacement and its impact on displaced children 305. Under the legal precedents of the Inter-American human rights system, the State must adopt measures aimed at providing special protection to children, taking greater care and responsibility under the principle of the best interests of the child.433 Article 19 of the American Convention must be interpreted as a complementary right, which is established by this instrument for human beings, who because of their stage of physical and emotional development, require measures of special protection.434 That means that children are entitled to the same human rights as all persons are entitled to, and also special rights stemming from their special condition of vulnerability, and these rights are accompanied by specific duties of the family, society and the State.435 431 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. 432 The family members affected by the violation of Article 22 in connection with articles 17.1 and 1.1 of the same instrument would be as follows: Mrs. Rúa - Gustavo de Jesús Tobón (permanent companion), Bárbara del Sol (daughter), Úrsula Manuela (daughter) and Valentina (daughter). Mrs. Ospina - Oscar Julio Hoyos Oquendo (spouse), Edid Yazmín (son), Oscar Darío (son), and Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina (daughter). Mrs. Mosquera - Hilda Milena Villa Mosquera (daughter), Lubín Alfonso Villa Mosquera (grandson and deceased), Iván Alberto Mosquera (son), and Marlon Daniel Mosquera (son). Mrs. Naranjo - Juan David Naranjo (son), Sandra Janeth Naranjo (daughter), Alejandro Naranjo (son), Alba Mery Naranjo (daughter), María Camila (granddaughter), Aura María (granddaughter), Esteban Torres (grandson), Nancy Gutiérrez (daughter-in-law), and Alejandro (grandson), Matías (grandson). 433 IA Court of HR, Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, pars. 124, 163-164, and 171; Case Bulacio. Judgment September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, pars. 126 and 134; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Judgment November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, pars. 146 and 191. In this regard, IA Court of HR, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, pars. 56 and 60. 434 IA Court of HR, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, par. 54. Also see IA Court of HR, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, par. 147. 435 IACHR, Merits Report No. 64/11, Case 12.573, Marino López et al (Operation Genesis), Colombia, March 31, 2011, par. 319; IA Court of HR, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, par. 54; IA Court of HR, Case of the Kákmok Kasek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 152, par. 113.