58 a dignified and safe return to their places of habitual residence or voluntary resettlement in another part of the country, or, as the case may be, adequate compensation. Nor did the State establish the conditions or provide the indispensable means to repair or mitigate the effects of the displacement of members of the communities that were resettled after March 9, 1987. Consequently, the State did not guarantee the freedom of movement and residence of the members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal who were displaced from their communities, in violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B.3. Effects of displacement and failure to guarantee measures of return for members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities of Rabinal 190. From the evidence submitted to the Court, it is clear that the displacement and absence of measures to guarantee return or resettlement had serious effects on the life projects and family relationships of members of the Maya Achí community of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities. In this regard, the expert witness Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza and the psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis explained that, as a direct consequence of the displacement process and within the context of survival strategies, there were abrupt role changes and a “brutal” change in people’s life projects. For example: “[the] women […] hiding in different cities had to ‘wash other people’s clothes’, make tortillas or tamales to sell from house to house, or work as domestic servants, etc., while in their previous community they were housewives in rural family units;” “children […] became heads of family [and took] charge of their younger siblings after the murder of their parents, until they found their grandparents.” Others “went from being smallholders or tenants of agricultural plots” to being “assembly line workers,” “bricklayers”, “‘baggage carriers’ in different municipal markets of the country,” or “working as farm laborers in different regions” and as “domestic workers.” 200 191. For the Court it is evident that the displacement of members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities seriously impacted the relationship of the Maya Achi people with their territory, as well as the community’s traditional, cultural and ancestral ties within the group as such. In this regard, the expert witness Salvadó Cardoza indicated that “[t]he displacement brutally severed the historical ties that the affected population had with their territory, with the land and with the social practices that governed their daily lives.” Among the effects on the community, he described “the disarticulation of the community fabric,” which “led to the rupture of social relationships that had been established in each community to organize coexistence, the sudden loss of traditional channels for the transmission of knowledge [between generations], the cultural logic of production and land use practices”, as well as “the identity markers were gradually broken down.” The “community’s cohesion was reduced,” “mistrust was generated among the people” and “people were isolated from each other.” Furthermore, “community organizations were severely weakened by the disappearance of the previously existing leadership.” Cultural aspects of the Maya Achí population were also impacted, since in the “new lateral survival strategies, the identity markers are hidden.” In the case of the women, “in their flight [they had] to get rid of their traditional costumes, the clothes they had worn since they were born […], and change them for what they call ‘factory clothes’, “in a very painful process of ‘mimicry’ that makes survival in the new environment possible.” At the same time, the Achí language that was used in social, community and family relationships was affected, because when they left the communities, their members had to face the world in Spanish, which is not their first language. 201 200 Cf. Report of the expert witness Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza presented at the public hearing held on April 28, 2016 (evidence file, folios 11673 and 11676). Also, the report on the damage to mental (moral) health prepared by psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis on May 5, 2010 and presented before the Inter-American Commission(evidence file, folios 1316 and 1325). 201 Cf. Written report of the expert witness Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza presented during the public hearing held on April 28, 2016 (evidence file, folios 11676 to 11678), and expert opinion of Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza presented before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing on April 28, 2016.