humanitarian conditions for four years.” It argued that, “during the move, they lost their family members, and since they moved to three different settlements (Turbo, Bocas del Atrato and Bahía Cupica) some families were split up and were separated for four years.” It also indicated that, owing to the living conditions in the settlements, “the displaced were unable to have the type of family life they enjoyed” in accordance with their traditional customs, so that the State “failed to adopt measures to carry out a prompt return process,” which occurred “after four years.” On this basis, it affirmed that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 11(2), 17(1) and 1(1), to the detriment of the members of the displaced Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and of the families who live in Turbo; and it was also responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 11(2), 17(1), 19 and 1(1), to the detriment of the children of this community. 301. The representatives added that “the State’s obligations to protect the family must be put into practice by the adoption of measures of a legislative, administrative or any other nature that are aimed at strengthening the family, or at respect for different types of family and, thus, of the different cultures, under conditions of equality and non-discrimination among their members.” They also indicated that “the crimes affected the family groups directly; the forced displacement split up families that were kept separated for years in some cases; in addition, some families lost their loved ones and, because of this, women had to become heads of household, and children lost their fathers, and the families had to be restructured owing to these events.” 302. In this regard, the representatives argued that the violations of the rights of the family were constituted “by the fact of the displacement, which destroyed the community ties and interrelationships; moreover, the family should be considered in its broadest sense, according to the customs of the Afro-descendant group whose rights were violated, because the impairment of cultural identity manifested by the loss of traditions and practices within the communities as a result of the rupture of the family structures and the impossibility of living their lives on their ancestral territory should not be ignored.” Consequently, they asked the Court to “declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 17 of the [Convention], to the detriment of the 531 persons of the displaced communities, associated for their return in [CAVIDA] communities, of the displaced women who live in Turbo and, intermittently, between Turbo and other towns in Colombia.” 303. The State argued that it had respected and ensured the right to protection of the family in keeping with Article 17 of the American Convention, and that it had “supported the family reunification stage of the displaced community.” In this regard, the State affirmed that it had: (a) “provided emergency humanitarian assistance to the displaced population”; (b) adopted measures for the return and for reparation,” and (c) “among the measures, some were directly aimed at the protection of the family and its reunification, and to respond to the rights to food, health and education of the children.”558 Rights of the child (Article 19 of the American Convention) 304. The Commission affirmed that the children of the displaced communities “suffered the violence of the armed operations leading to their displacement, as well as the consequences of the displacement itself; including the impact on their living conditions,” and considered that the 558 In particular, it described the “Additional programs and assistance to those delivered under the CMV. In addition to the aid delivered under the CMV, it should be indicated that, in Colombia, under the current National Development Plan: Prosperity for All, a new institutional framework has been designed that reveals the State’s efforts to guarantee social inclusion and mobility so that all Colombians, regardless of the region they come from, their status as victims of armed conflict, their ethnic origin, gender, age, or disability, have equal opportunities to accede to the beneits of development and, thus, to take advantage of the fundamental tools that will allow them to construct their own destiny. […] Program: Más Familias en Acción […] Strategy: Food Security Network. On March 31, 2008, the National Council for Economic and Social Policy approved the National Food Security and Nutritional Policy (PSAN). […] Production inclusion: […] Income-generation policy for communities living in extreme poverty and/or displacement […].” 103