14 72. The State considers that the humanitarian aid provided has stopped or lessened the damage arising as a consequence of the displacement, the consequences of the international violation and has repaired the damages caused. It maintains that the doctrine of State assistance must be taken into account at the time of assessing the damages. It indicates that this humanitarian aid addresses all forms of damage as established in the Inter-American System, i.e.: moral damage, material damage, profit and loss, and latent damage. It alleges that this aid has sought to permit the displaced persons’ return, has benefitted the displaced persons with housing projects financed by the State and has allowed for ownership of collective lands. It maintains that this aid has addressed damages recognized by the Inter-American Court in other cases on the right to free movement and residence, where the Court has sought to compensate through the so-called “other forms of reparation”. 73. The State raises the inadmissibility of the petitioners’ allegation as to the violation of the right to life of the allegedly displaced persons, given that it was not admitted in Report No. 86/06. The State alleges that to put forward arguments on the merits different from those set out in the Admissibility Report, disregards the very function of the IACHR; and would affect the State’s right to a defense, given that it will be required to discuss the merits of questions to which it did not have the opportunity of presenting observations on admissibility. It maintains that in the interests of upholding the principles of judicial certainty, procedural fairness and the parties’ defense in the Inter-American System, it is not appropriate to discuss facts and rights different from those referred to in the Admissibility Report. 74. The State alleges that it is not responsible for the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity to the prejudice of the displaced persons. In this regard, it reiterates that an analysis of the alleged violation is necessarily linked to the identification of the alleged victims, as well as to the causal nexus between State action and the situation of displacement. It considers that in the present case, it remains impossible to conclude a violation of personal integrity, linked to the condition of displacement. In addition, with respect to the alleged violation of personal integrity, due to the conditions experienced by the individuals in the Turbo stadium, the State refers to the actions undertaken by the authorities aforementioned and considers that it has complied with its obligation to assist the said population. 75. As regards the alleged violation of the right to protection of the family, the State maintains that this right, in cases of displacement, has been fixed in Principle 17 of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In this respect, it alleges that it exercised the efforts necessary to maintain the displaced persons' family unity in Urabá at the time of the alleged events. It indicates that as from the end of 1996 assistance and help for the displaced population, as well as the facilitation of their return, was organized on a family basis. 76. Additionally, the State alleges that the petitioners have not adduced individual evidence of the adverse consequences on family protection and have not identified the alleged victims of the alleged violation. It alleges that in the evidence presented, it is clear that this alleged break-up of families or the community is attributable to third parties - and not to the State - by some of the displaced persons settled in the Turbo stadium. It alleges that the Inter-American Court has analyzed alleged violations of personal integrity in relation to the obligation of protection of the family and has concluded that the consequences that the events entail for the family environment must be examined within the guarantee contained in Article 5 of the American Convention. From the foregoing, the State requests from the IACHR the application of the same criterion in the event that it should consider examining the merits of the alleged violation of the protection of the family. 77. The State alleges that to claim the alleged violation of Article 19, as an automatic consequence of the alleged forced displacement is to ignore the autonomous character of each one of the rights protected in the Convention, and that it must be determined whether the violation came about by reason of being a son or daughter of the alleged victim. It maintains that otherwise, the protection of children would be reduced to a mere aggravating factor to international responsibility, requiring a framework of lack of childhood protection as an essential condition. It alleges that for this it is necessary to prove the status of a minor at the time of the violation - which has not been proved - given that the alleged victims have not been identified. Finally, it alleges that the petitioners have not presented