60 activities, rituals, spiritual practices and learning processes of their community, to speak their language and to wear their traditional costumes, as well as to practice their traditional occupations. 204 197. In short, the Court considers that the lack of guarantees for the return of members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal after March 9, 1987, has had a particularly adverse effect on the traditional community-based, cultural and religious practices, the family and social structure, and on the identity markers and language of the Maya Achí people of said village and communities. This is due to the disruption of the ancestral culture and the historical links with the territory and social practices, the destruction of the community’s social fabric and its sense of cohesion. All this has resulted in a loss of part of the Mayan culture that has not yet been fully evaluated. In this regard, the Court highlights the differentiated impact that the acts of violence and displacement have had on the ethnic and cultural identity of members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal, which has left them in a situation of exceptional vulnerability. 198. At the same time, the Court highlights the clear indications of the differentiated impact that forced displacement and the failure to guarantee return or resettlement measures has had on the women of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of Rabinal at the cultural, social, family and individual levels. These women have had to take charge of their families and, together with their children, endure the pain of the violence they survived, which placed them at particular risk of suffering other forms of violence. These factors, which are described below, give an idea of the horror they experienced and of the individual, family and collective suffering of women displaced during the internal armed conflict. 199. First, the expert witness Alejandro Rodríguez Barilla found that “in the instant case, the allegations suggest that at least 18 women suffered sexual violence and essentially mass rapes by members of the Army and paramilitary groups” and that some of these attacks were perpetrated against displaced women who were relocated in the “model village” or La Colonia. In turn, at least five of the women mentioned by the expert witness were victims of rapes that resulted in pregnancies and the birth of their children. 205 Second, the CEH Report states that “because of the modus operandi, the rapes led to an exodus of women and scattered entire communities, breaking up marital and social relationships, and thus led to a sense of social isolation and community shame. It also drove some women to abortion and infanticide, and were an impediment to marriages and births within the group.” Furthermore, “[t]he stigma attached to Maya women who are victims of rape provokes the horror of rejection by their families or the community. Some survivors of sexual violence have even moved to another community precisely to avoid the shame of being labeled as a ‘raped woman.’ These women have had to endure the fear of ‘being found out’ and the panic that others will blame them.” 206 200. Third, the Court takes note of the life testimony of Juana García Depaz, who suffered the loss of the men in her family, that is, the death of her husband, brother and son, the disappearance of her father, brother and nephew, as well as the death of her daughter, between August 1981 and August 1986. 207 She was captured on October 22, 1983, by the State security forces and taken to the military post in the municipality of Rabinal, where she was beaten, raped by soldiers, threatened with death, hung by the neck with a rope and interrogated about the guerrillas. She was then transferred to the Pacux colony of Rabinal, and later to the colony of Chichupac, where she lived under tight military control, was forced to work to feed the soldiers 204 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para.58, footnote 44, and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42.5. 205 Cf. Expert witness Alejandro Rodríguez Barilla (evidence file, folios 11568 and 11569). 206 Cf. CEH, “Guatemala, Memory of Silence”, Chapter 2, paras. 2353 and 2384. 207 The names of the family members of Juana García Depaz are: Mateo Grave, Adrián García Manuel, Hugo García de Paz, Agapito Alvarado Depáz, Eusebia Grave García, José León Grave García and Efraín García de Paz (supra paras. 86, 99, 115 and 148)