IX.3. DISPOSSESSION AND EXPLOITATION OF THE TERRITORIES OF THE AFRODESCENDANT COMMUNITIES OF THE CACARICA (Artículo 21 of the Convention) A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 339. The Commission indicated that the communities displaced from the Cacarica river basin who had been victims of the ransacking and destruction of their villages and who were displaced were prevented “from enjoying their property, lands, and the resources of traditional use found there.” The Commission also argued that the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica “maintain a close bond with their land, as part of their ancestral tradition, and therefore both their traditional lands as well as their natural resources must be safeguarded by Article 21 of the American Convention, in its collective dimension.” The Commission also considered that the right to property of the communities of the Cacarica river basin had been “affected due to the neglect and deterioration of their lands and both their moveable and immoveable, community and individual property,” and that the displacement impaired their ability to work, which resulted in loss of earnings. It also indicated that the right to property of the Afro-descendant communities was affected “during the time of the displacement because they had no access to the right to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources on their traditional lands - such as wood - among other resources traditionally used by members of the communities.” 340. The representatives added that the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica have “an almost umbilical relationship with the land, a vital relationship that can be perceived by the words they use, according to which the land is their mother and also their father, because they receive all its benefits,” and that, owing to Operation Genesis, “the victims in this case were arbitrarily deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property, in both its individual and communal dimension.” They also stated that the “displacement was accompanied by the ransacking and destruction of both individual and collective property.”587 Furthermore, they indicated that the violent incursion, the occupation and destruction of the spaces of their community and family life, of the places they lived in and planted, had profound effects on their way of life and survival, on their culture and ancestral identity, and as a result it “violated […] the sphere of protection of Article 21” of the Convention. 341. Furthermore, they noted that “the territory from which they were displaced was exploited illegally by logging companies, while the territory was controlled by paramilitary groups that prevented the return of its ancestral inhabitants.” They indicated, in particular, that “these companies exploited the timber resources of the Cacarica area irrationally, by mechanical means, and this has had an extremely harmful effect on the land, the forestry resources, and the living conditions of the ethnic minorities who inhabit the areas that were logged […]”; moreover, they accused the company MADARIEN of being the “direct beneficiary of different areas of the Colombian economy.” They added that “the illegal operations of the companies have caused severe environmental damage to the collective territory of which the victims in this case are the ancestral owners.” 342. Based on the above, the representatives considered that the State’s “responsibility had been constituted because it deliberately allowed the illegal exploitation of resources by private companies, which were supported by paramilitary groups, and had not taken effective measures to repair the environmental damage that this situation had caused and to guarantee that the said activities did not continue,” and “nor had it taken effective steps to stop companies from 587 Among this property, they indicated “the school, the health center, the women’s store, the meeting place, a football field, a power plant, an engine, working animals, and a collective vehicle […].” 112