40 their financial and political activities. After [the events of February 27, 1998,] and owing to the very dangerous situation they faced, because the harassment continued despite their departure from the municipality of Ituango, they were obliged to leave Colombia and go into exile in another country.” 134. The State acknowledged that “[a]fter the death of Jesús María Valle, Mr. Jaramillo Correa and his direct nuclear family became the victims of constant threats and harassment because they had testified before the Prosecutor’s Office. The situation of particular vulnerability in which [Mr. Jaramillo Correa] found himself obliged him to abandon his place of residence.” Consequently, the State acknowledged its international responsibility, by omission, for the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his direct nuclear family. Nevertheless, the State specified that this acknowledgement “does not include their displacement after June 11, 1996, which was due to the difficult security situation in Ituango following the La Granja massacre and the abandonment of the properties of the Jaramillo Correa family,” because “[t]he situation of violence in the region of Ituango and its consequences for the inhabitants of the zone, including Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his family, are not the subject of these proceedings[…].” 135. The Court observes that the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to the violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention refers to the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his family as a result of the facts of the instant case; that is, after February 1998. This acknowledgment does not include the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence alleged by the representatives, of which Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa was the alleged victim in June 1996, following the La Granja Massacre,96 when he was supposedly displaced from Ituango to Medellín. In this regard, the Court notes that, in its analysis in this chapter, it will not consider the alleged displacement of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his family that may have taken place as a result of events prior to those of this case (supra paras. 133 and 134). 136. In his testimony during the public hearing before the Court, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa stated that: […] Following the murder of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo in his office in Medellín, [… he] collaborated with the Prosecutor General’s Office in the investigation into this murder […] by testifying. When the Prosecutor’s Office had completed its investigations, the danger [he] faced at that time, and [prior] to the murder of [Jesús María Valle Jaramillo,] became more evident, and [he] had to go into exile, provisionally at first […] and, at the end of 1998, definitively […]. […] [W]hen the Prosecutor General’s Office [began making] arrests and [issuing] arrest warrants for those accused of the murder of [Jesús María Valle Jaramillo], [his] name was made public, since he never testified anonymously; to the contrary, [he] always wanted it to be clear that it was [he] who had testified[. H]ence, since [his] name was in the public domain, he was at greater risk of being murdered by paramilitary groups.97 137. Also, as part of his testimony during the public hearing, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa stated that “every day of his life, [he] think[s] of returning [to Colombia,] but [he sees] that [he has] virtually lost [his] homeland; that [he] cannot return [because] so much 96 97 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21. Testimony given by the witness Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa at the public hearing held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 6 and 7, 2008.