61 262. Given that fact, the Commission observes that the facts of the present case occurred within a generalized context of internal forced displacement in Guatemala, particularly of the indigenous population, and was caused by the internal armed conflict and the terror to which the indigenous population was subjected. The Commission therefore concludes that the State of Guatemala is responsible for violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the survivors of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities. 2.5.4. Rights to honor and dignity, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of association, and to participate in government (articles 11, 12, 16 and 23 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 263. The Commission has written that for an ethnic group to be able to preserve its cultural values, it is essential that its members be allowed to enjoy all of the rights set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights, since this guarantees their effective functioning as a group, which includes preservation of their own cultural identity.352 Particularly relevant, among others, are the right 353 to honor and dignity, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of association, which will be examined below. 264. The Court has written that Article 11 of the Convention recognizes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected, prohibits any unlawful attack on honor and reputation, and 354 imposes on the States the obligation to provide the protection of the law against such attacks. The Court has also held that the right to have one’s honor respected relates to self-esteem and self-worth, whereas reputation refers to the opinion other persons have about someone.355 265. In the instant case, the Commission has taken as established fact that the Guatemalan State regarded the Mayan people as guerrillas, the social base of the guerrilla forces, the enemy within and subversives, all based on the National Security Doctrine and the Victory 82 Plan, thereby damaging the Maya people’s reputation and violating their honor. This stigma was one of the main pretexts for the atrocious persecution and annihilation of which they were victims. 266. Here, the CEH wrote that: […] in most cases, the identification between the Maya communities and the insurgency was intentionally exaggerated by the State which, drawing on traditional racist stereotypes, used this form of identification to eliminate present and future possibilities of the population providing 356 assistance to or joining any insurgent project. 352 IACHR, Report No. 86/10, Case 12,649, Merits, Community of Río Negro of the Maya indigenous people and its members, Guatemala, July 14, 2000, par. 319. 353 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin, November 29, 1983, par.14. 354 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, par. 444. 355 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, par.57. 356 Annex 1. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume V, Conclusions and Recommendations, par. 31.