60 unique characteristics of each indigenous people, its customary law, values, uses and customs, so as to prevent and reverse the effects of that situation.347 259. In the context of the armed conflict in Guatemala, the CEH observed that: The displacement of the civilian population in Guatemala stands out […] because it was done on such a massive scale and was so destructive […]. […] Families and entire communities were torn apart and the cultural ties that bound them together were severed. The unprecedented terror […] unleashed a massive exodus of various peoples, most of whom were from Maya communities […]. For some families, the displacement was a matter of weeks; for others, however, the 348 displacement went on for years. […]. 260. In the cas d’espèce, the Commission has taken as established fact that the members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities were forced to abandon their villages, leaving behind destroyed belongings, their homes and their land; initially, they fled to neighboring communities or the mountains. For months and even years, these people lived in fear and insecurity, induced by the State’s persecution, struggling to survive the threats, persecution, and hunger, and without access to health and education services. The Commission recalls that the Court has held that the fear that displaced survivors have for their safety and the failure to conduct a criminal investigation of the events, deprive the displaced survivors of their right to freedom of movement and residence.349 261. It has also been established that starting in late 1983, the survivors of Chichupac village were resettled in the model village set up by the Army, living in precarious conditions and under constant military control. The CEH wrote the following in this regard: From 1983 onwards, the Army’s strategy for the displaced population was designed more to regain control of the displaced population, urging it to return to places under its control: amnesties were offered and those who accepted were resettled in highly militarized communities with a view to long-term pacification of the conflict areas. […] To gain control over the population in the conflict areas, particularly the displaced who had returned, the Army used different methods, such as forced resettlement in places where it could easily control the 350 population, places like the model villages or the larger villages and hamlets. The Amy […] ordered people who were going to be resettled in these places to build their own houses […thereby trying to undermine] the traditional settlement master plans of the campesino 351 indigenous population […] . 347 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par.63; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, par.147. 348 Annex 3. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume III, The Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence, par.4193. 349 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paragraphs 107 to 121; see, also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paragraphs 113 to 120. 350 Annex 3. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume III, The Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence, par. 2983 351 Annex 3. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume III, The Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence, par. 3026.