250. For its part, the State argued that the attack, the terror, and the destruction of the homes were caused by the FARC guerrilla, and that the violation of the right to freedom of movement could be attributed to that group. It also indicated that “the displacement of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo cannot be attributed to the Armed Forces, which, under their obligations of guarantee and protection, planned a ground and airborne operation, in order to control public order and protect the civilian population,” in which the operative orders established “that the Armed Forces [must] comply strictly with respect for human rights and international humanitarian law, and [must] treat the civilian population in a respectful, friendly and firm manner.” 251. Likewise, the State indicated that, at the date of the facts, Law 387 (1997) was in force “based on which measures were adopted to prevent forced displacement, to consolidate and to provide attention, protection and socio-economic stabilization to the internally displaced owing to the violence in […] Colombia,”365 and its implementation was coordinated by the then Social Solidarity Network, which undertook measures to strengthen the administrative mechanisms and entities that constituted the System for Integral Attention to the Displaced Population. In addition, the State asserted that, although the displacement was a de facto situation that had not been created by the Armed Forces, a series of actions had been taken in favor of the displaced: “(i) emergency humanitarian aid was provided to the population that moved from the district of Santo Domingo to the urban center of the municipality of Tame (Arauca); (ii) through its Armed Forces, [the State] took back control of the area, which allowed all the inhabitants to return one month after the events, and (iii) to ensure the sustainability of the return of the population, it signed and implemented a housing reconstruction and improvement project in the village.” Lastly, in relation to the subsequent assistance provided to some of the presumed victims, the State indicated that “the beneficiaries included in the Single Register of Victims (RUV) were provided with comprehensive assistance through the Emergency Humanitarian Aid (AHE) component, as well as social programs for the displaced population,” and that, “information in the National Information Network (RNI), reveals that the 11 individuals included in the RUV received humanitarian aid in accordance with their vulnerability, once or more.” A.2. Alleged violation of the right to property 252. The Commission concluded that the State had violated the right recognized in Article 21 of the Convention,366 in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims of the bombardment of Santo Domingo. It indicated that “owing to the limited precision and enormous anti-personnel force of cluster devices, the bombing of the village of Santo Domingo caused destruction to homes and properties in it,” and that, in some of the homes, property was stolen or destroyed by soldiers who arrived in the village after the incident.” When submitting the case to the Court, the Commission indicated that, “with regard to the identification of the victims of the violations of the rights to freedom of movement and residence and to property, because of the very nature of the facts of the case, [… it] was unable to obtain accurate information that would enable it to specifically name all [of them, … so that,] given the intrinsic characteristics of the violations established, as well as the displacement and its consequences, […it] gave special consideration in its merits report to the need to apply a broad understanding of the definition of victims.” Regarding the right to property, in particular, the Commission considered that the State had violated that right to the detriment of 10 presumed victims who it identified, “among other surviving victims who lived in the village of Santo Domingo, and [whose] property was looted or destroyed and/or their homes damaged. 253. The representatives added that “owing to the enforced displaced caused by State agents, some families lost or suffered damage to their homes, possessions, crops and animals that provided their subsistence,” and that “the inhabitants of Santo Domingo who had sustainable and stable living standards owing to their businesses had to undertake new employment activities, 365 Law 387 of 1997 July 18). The Colombian Congress. 366 Article 21 of the Convention establishes that “1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. […].” ‐ 74 ‐