37 2. The forced displacement, the disintegration of the Chitay Rodriguez family and the effects on the cultural life of the indigenous children A. The forced displacement of the Chitay Rodriguez family 135. The representatives alleged that as a result of the acts of intimidation and persecution that the members of the Chitay Rodriguez family suffered, they were obligated to escape suddenly from San Martín Jilotepeque and to move to Guatemala City, leaving all of their belongings either abandoned or destroyed. Since then it has been impossible to return to their place of origin, given that no authority has intervened in order to protect them, and there still exists a great amount of insecurity in the area, for which they fear they are targets of reprisals from the persons that took their father. Finally, they noted that for the children of Florencio Chitay Nech, the forced displacement implicated the loss of their culture, traditions, language and ancestral past which had an “even more dramatic effect given the fact that they are indigenous, as a result of the cultural value that the lands have from the point of view of the Mayan culture.” 136. The Commission did not allege the violation of the freedom of movement and residence. Nevertheless, in the application, paragraphs 69, 70, 187, and 188, it described that the Chitay Rodriguez family was obligated to escape to Guatemala City due to the harassments and persecutions against them. 137. The State did not make specific allegations to distort the claims of the representatives, but only mentioned that “the State of Guatemala, at no moment impeded or prohibited the freedom of movement and residence of the petitioners, and as such the State is not responsible for the supposed violation of Article 22.” 138. As previously considered, the Court finds it necessary to point out that in the present case, the supposed violation of Article 22 of the Convention, which was not alleged before the Commission, is based on the fact that Mr. Chitay Nech and his next of kin were objected to various acts of harassment and threats, for which they had to escape from San Martín Jilotepeque to Guatemala City (supra para. 74). The Tribunal has stated that the State had the opportunity to refer to said allegation in various procedural opportunities. Nevertheless, it did not present any specific arguments regarding the alleged violation, and only opposed the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which was resolved by the Tribunal (supra para. 31 and 34). Consequently, the Court considers that the lack of claims regarding Article 22 in the processing before the Commission has not affected the procedural balance of the parties, nor has diminished the right of defense of the State regarding it having the opportunity to present its arguments and evidence through the process before this Tribunal. 145 Cf. Statement of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 55; statement of Eliseo Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 59, and statement of Estemerio Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 131. 146 Cf. Statement of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 55. 147 Cf. Statement of Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 58.