obligation towards any inhabitant with such needs, while reparation involves an obligation under international law to repair the consequences of a conduct that violated the Convention and thus reinstate, to the extent possible, the rights of the victims.” The representatives agreed with the Commission as regards the absence of adequate measures at the domestic level to ensure the rights and freedoms established in the Convention. 296. The State indicated that it had adopted “a series of legislative, administrative and judicial measures, including numerous laws, decrees, documents of the National Council for Economic and Social Policy (CONPES), and presidential directives and decrees […]” setting up “a complete institutional framework” to provide attention to the displaced population and thus ensure their rights before, during and after the displacement. Right to personal integrity (Article 5(1) of the American Convention) 297. The Commission indicated that “the transfer of the displaced from their places of origin to three refuge points, the living conditions of the displaced in those receiving areas, and the threats, harassment and acts of violence during the period of displacement,” constituted a violation of the right to personal integrity. The Commission also maintained that the State had “not adopted the necessary measures to prevent the violation of the right to personal integrity of the members of the communities of the Cacarica river basin in view of the imminent displacement” and, as a result of this, the State had “not established the conditions to allow all those displaced to return safely.” It considered that although the State had “made some efforts to try to provide solutions to the displaced,” the measures adopted by the State “were neither sufficient or appropriate to reverse the vulnerable situation of the displaced”; therefore, it considered that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the Convention in relation to Articles 5 and 1(1), to the detriment of the members of the displaced Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and the women heads of household who live in Turbo. 298. The representatives argued that “the conditions to which the victims in this case were subjected for almost four years of displacement constituted inhuman treatment and, therefore, a violation of the right to personal integrity of the men, women and children who were in shelters experiencing makeshift conditions.” Accordingly, they considered that the Colombian State had violated the “right to mental and moral integrity of the inhabitants of Cacarica and, also, the obligation to protect them.” They also argued that the State, “as guarantor of the rights of those subject to its jurisdiction, must also take responsibility for the right to personal integrity of those who are in its custody,” so that if, when such events occur, the authorities do not conduct a genuine investigation into the events and fail to prosecute those responsible, it can be attributed with international responsibility for such events” under Articles 1 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 299. The State observed that it was not internationally responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the inhabitants of the Cacarica River basin because “there was no relationship of cause and effect between the actions deployed by the State agents in Operation Genesis […] and the displacement of the communities that inhabited the Cacarica river basin.” It also maintained that “its agents were not responsible for an omission that could be attributed to the State,” and there had not been an “absence of reasonable foresight in relation to the actions of third parties.” It added that the State had acted “legitimately and legally, and if the military and police operations against illegal armed groups are conducted under these conditions, they cannot entail international responsibility for the State.” Moreover, it indicated that the displacement had “been voluntary and not forced, so that no wrongful act had occurred that could give rise to the State’s international responsibility.” Right to protection of the family and not to be the object of arbitrary interference with family life (Articles 17(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention) 300. The Commission argued that, owing to the forced displacement, the families of the Cacarica communities had to abandon their homes and settle, as displaced persons, in dire 102