but interrelated levels: first, owing to its active role in originating the displacement and, second, owing to the lack of an adequate and effective response following the displacement. 293. The representatives affirmed that “the State violated massively the right to freedom of movement of the victims of this case,” owing to “three fundamental elements for establishing this responsibility”: (a) “the absolute limitation of the freedom of movement of the members of the communities during the days on which the paramilitaries and soldiers were carrying out the incursion into the Cacarica river basin”; (b) “the massive forced displacement of the Cacarica communities caused by the State itself owing to the military operation and the paramilitary strategy, and which was channeled towards Turbo by the State itself,” and (c) the fact that the “State has not taken measures aimed at ensuring the complete return of the communities to their territories, and to their family and communal life.” 294. The State observed that it was not responsible for the presumed violation of the freedom of movement and residence of the inhabitants of the Cacarica river basin. It affirmed, in particular, that in “these proceedings it has not been sufficiently proved that the mobilization of the population of the communities of the river basin […] was cause by an act or omission that can be attributed to State agents,” and added that the State had taken “the necessary actions to provide emergency humanitarian aid, as well as to ensure the return and permanence of those affected.” In this regard, it indicated that “the displacement was a de facto situation that was not caused by the Armed Forces,” and mentioned that the State had taken a “series of actions in favor of those displaced.”557 The State maintained that it had implemented public policies “based on the characteristics and the situation of the displaced population, so that each group of the population (women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous people, and Afro-Colombians) was attended according to its needs, thus ensuring a public policy with a differentiated approach.” Domestic legal provisions (Article 2 of the American Convention) 295. The Commission indicated that the State’s responsibility did not arise merely from the fact that it had played an “important role from the start,” but that “it continued to be constituted owing to the failure to comply with its minimum obligations” towards the displaced population. It pointed out two obligations of “special relevance”: the obligation to provide and facilitate humanitarian assistance, and that of facilitating the return of those displaced. On this point, it indicated with regard to the difference between humanitarian aid and reparation to the victims of forced displacement that “humanitarian assistance is part of the State’s general 557 Specifically, the State indicated that the “Government’s first direct approach to the issue was by CONPES document 2804 of 1995, in which it approved the National Program for Comprehensive Assistance to People Displaced by Violence. Owing to institutional shortcomings, a new CONPES document was issued, No. 2924 of 1997, entitled National System for Comprehensive Assistance to People Displaced by Violence […]. Nevertheless, in view of the urgency of the situation, the Executive and the Legislature combined efforts and Law 387 of 1997 was enacted. This law ordered comprehensive attention to the displaced population based on three stages of attention to displacement: Prevention, Humanitarian attention, and Economic stabilization […].” The State indicated that, “even though at the time of the events, Law 387 of 1997 was not in force adopting measures to prevent forced displacement, and to provide attention, protection, and economic stabilization and consolidation to those displaced internally owing to the violence in the Republic of Colombia, which came into force on July 18 that year, as of that time, the attention and reparation to those displaced came under the coordination of the former Social Solidarity Network that carried out activities to strengthen the management mechanisms and instances that, at the different territorial levels, implemented the System of Comprehensive Attention to the Displaced Population.” The State also indicated that it had: “(i) provided emergency humanitarian assistance to the population that moved from the Cacarica River basin to Bocas del Atrato and to the municipality of Turbo; (ii) in order to ensure the sustainability of the return of the inhabitants, it had created a verification commission with the participation of a substantial number of Government ministries and institutons and international Governments and cooperation agencies, as well as representatives of the presumed victims; (iii) within this framework, programs on health, housing, production projects, and family reunification and attention were implemented, among many other actions designed to attend to the displaced population, and (iv) the Government also ordered the granting of collective land titles over more than 100,000 hectares, to the communities of the river basin.” It also mentioned as a positive measures the award of collective titles to the land, and the intervention of different entities that provided assistance, including the Joint Verification Commission, the Social Solidarity Network, and the Colombian Social Welfare Institute. 101