State was internationally reponsible for the violation of the rights of the child owing to the failure to protect the family. It also indicated that the State “failed to adopt measures to prevent the displacement of these children, and to adopt special and differentiated measures to protect them and to attend to their special needs during the displacement, given their state of great vulnerability and the differenciated impact caused by forced displacement.” Thus the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 19, to the detriment of displaced children, members of the Cacarica communities associated in CAVIDA and the children of the women living in Turbo. 305. The representatives indicated that the children’s right to equality was violated in this case because: (a) the State failed to take the necessary positive measures with regard to this group of Afro-descendants who were traditionally discriminated against, and based on their condition as children; (b) during the displacement, the children were subjected to exceptional risks that prevented their development and inclusion in their traditional social milieu, depriving them of the culture and customs of their ethnic group, as well as in degrading conditions in which they could not exercise their rights under equal conditions to the rest of the population, and (c) while they were away from their ancestral territories, they were unable to exercise their rights to education, health and others, thus experiencing “exceptional situations of discrimination such as the rejection of their peers.” They asked that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 4, 5, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 24 of the Convention, to the detriment of the children of the communities displaced from the Cacarica River. 306. The State observed that it had not violated the rights of the child, because: (a) there was no causal nexus between the displacement and Operation Genesis”; (b) “the presumed victims were not identified and individualized as established in Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,” and (c) “once the displacement had occurred, the State took steps to ensure the children’s rights.” Thus, it indicated that the State of Colombia was not responsible for the violation of the rights contained in Article 19 of the Convention and considered that, in compliance with the obligation to respect and ensure the rights of the child, it had “adopted measures addressed at community development to benefit the community, especially the children.”559 The right to non-discrimination and the right to the protection of honor and dignity (Articles 24 and 11(1) of the American Convention) 307. The Commission observed that the State had “not complied with its international obligations of protection in favor of a group at high risk of human rights violations that was subject to special protection.” It also indicated that this lack of protection “in addition to being discriminatory, constituted a failure to comply with the State’s obligation to protect and respect the social and cultural integrity of the Afro-descendant communities.” It emphasized that “the lack of differentiated attention for the displaced, owing to their situation of greater vulnerability also constituted a failure to comply with the international obligations assumed by the State.” 308. Furthermore, the Commission stated that, in the instant case, the group of victims is composed of displaced Afro-descendants, victims of the armed conflict, of whom more than 100 are children, and numerous others are women, while a group of the latter are “women heads of 559 The State indicated that in “compliance with the agreements and commitments made, the Ministry of Education has executed the following activities” Education: during the emergency or humanitarian assistance stage: training of young volunteers from the community in the Pavarandó camp in order to provide teachers, adults and youth with conceptual and methodological tools to develop alternative educational procedures to the established models. […] Education Compensation Fund […] Technical Assistance. […] Provisions of 400 desks […] Teacher training […] Actions of the Chocó Regional Office of the ICBF [Colombian Family Welfare Institute] in the Cacarica River basin […]. Health: the State informs the Court […] that the basic services have been provided through the Health Brigades coordinated by the Ministry of Social Protection and the Turbo Hospital. In some cases, people have been attended in the Turbo and Apartadó hospitals and, at times, when necessay, they are transferred to Medellín […].” 104