circumstances; in three of these cases the Court has found the State responsible for the acts of its agents (supra paras. 68 and 96) while, in the other four cases, its responsibility arose from failing to comply with its obligation of prevention and guarantee (supra para. 131). Several members of the Barrios family testified before domestic bodies and before this Court that: (a) they moved from Guanayén owing to the violent acts that occurred against their next of kin or against themselves;208 (b) they moved owing to the fear and lack of security they felt,209 and (c) they did not return to the said place because they were afraid of what could happen to them.210 In this regard, the situation is revealed by the statements made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios, who said that her “family became totally disorganized [and] went to many different places,”211 and by Luisa del Carmen Barrios who stated that, following the threats and deaths, “each member of the family took off in a different direction.”212 164. The Court observes that the State has not presented specific arguments about the incidents and about the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, merely affirming that it had not violated the right to freedom of movement and residence of the members of the Barrios family. 165. The Court considers that Venezuela has not formally restricted the freedom of movement and residence of the members of the Barrios family. Nevertheless, it finds that, in this case, this freedom has been limited by serious de facto restrictions arising from the threats, harassment and other violent acts that have led to the departure of several of its members from Guanayén and their reticence to return, owing to the well-founded fear that their own life or safety, or that of their next of kin, could be in danger owing to the violent events that took place and the lack of security, added to the failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the facts. Indeed, the State is responsible for the conduct of its agents that caused the displacements and for not having established the conditions or provided the means to allow the members of the Barrios family to return safely. As this Court has previously established, the absence of an effective investigation of violent acts can lead to or perpetuate exile or forced displacement.213 166. From the evidence provided by the parties, the Court considers that the households of Elbira Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Pablo Julián Solórzano Barrios, Maritza Barrios, Brígida Oneyda Barrios and Eloisa Barrios either moved or suffered a restriction of their freedom of movement. 214 208 Cf. Complaint filed before the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on February 10, 2005, supra note 198, folios 3767 to 3768; Complaint filed before the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on June 22, 2005, supra note 123, folio 3770; Affidavits made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Lilia Ysabel Solórzano Barrios and Maritza Barrios, supra notes 171 and 193, folios 882, 897 and 905. 209 Cf. Affidavits made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Lilia Ysabel Solórzano Barrios, Luisa del Carmen Barrios and Pablo Julian Solórzano Barrios, supra notes 171 and 193, folios 882, 883, 897, 900 and 918. 210 Cf. Affidavit made by Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios, supra note 162, folio 924. 211 Cf. Affidavit made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios, supra note 171, folio 883. 212 Cf. Affidavit made by Luisa del Carmen Barrios, supra note 193, folio 900. 213 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 206, para. 120, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 151, para. 201. 214 The Commission did not indicate Lilia Ysabel Solórzano Barrios as an alleged victim in the instant case. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its consistent case law in recent years, it has established that the alleged victims must be indicated in the Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention. Also, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission and not this Court, to identify the alleged victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity. Consequently, the Court will not 55