86 295. The Court has established that because of the importance of the rights of the family, the State is under the obligation to favor the development and strengthening of the family nucleus.420 The Commission notes that forced displacement in and of itself strikes directly at this principle. 296. Forced displacement has a special impact on the family structure of displaced persons.421 It leads to a radical, traumatic and sudden change in roles and the dynamic within the family nucleus. It can split apart family ties and relationships, as well as lead to its physical break up. Most displaced persons live in situations of poverty in their original community, and this situation only grows worse when they are forced to move to a different location, where they have to find new ways to make ends meet; and this is a heavy burden for women heads of household. This impact on the family is only heightened by the insecurity in which the great majority of these individuals are displaced; the acts of violence inflicted on them in their destination location; and the insecurity that often prevents them from returning home. Based on these considerations, a violation by the State of its obligation to prevent the forced displacement, can also imply a violation of the rights of the family of the individuals involved. 297. In light of the above-stated considerations, the Commission finds that the right to protection of the family of Ms. Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera, Naranjo, and their next of kin were also violated with their forced displacement. While the Commission did not rule on the alleged violation of Article 17.1 in the admissibility reports of the cases of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, the facts supporting said allegations are an integral part of the instant matter and, moreover, the petitioners did made specific arguments in this regard from the beginning and, therefore, the State was able to refute those arguments. Consequently, the Commission finds that based on the examination of the case file, the body of evidence, and the contextual situation of the case, there are sufficient elements to rule on the alleged violations pertaining to the right to protection of the family of Ms. Rúa y Ospina, and their next of kin, as a result of their displacement. 298. The body of evidence before the IACHR attests to the harmful impact of forced displacement on the dynamic in the families of Ms. Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo. 299. Ms. Ospina was forced to become displaced at times on her own, and separate from her husband and two sons, because they had to return to Comuna 13 in order to protect their home from occupation by the paramilitary forces.422 Additionally, she was separated from her children when she moved with part of the family to Uruguay for one year.423 She testified before the IACHR on the impact of displacement on her family life, and the instability resulting from displacement, such as her husband having to constantly be changing jobs, the disruption of her children’s studies in school, and having to 420 IA Court of HR. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17-02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, par. 62. 421 IACHR, Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 67, 18 of October 2006, pars. 70, 76; United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Mrs. Rhadika Coomaraswamy, Visit to Colombia, March 11, 2002, pars. 69-70; United Nations Development Fund for Women, Preparing for Peace: The critical role of women in Colombia, 2004, pg. 24. 422 Annex 15. Statement of Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012. 423 Annex 15. Statement of Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012.