52 rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 277. The Inter-American Court has held that article 22.1 of the Convention “protects the right 286 not to be forcibly displaced within a State party. The Court has also ruled that “liberty of movement is 287 an indispensable condition for the free development of a person” . Furthermore the Court has recognized that: By reason of the complexity of the phenomena of internal displacement and the broad range of human rights that it affects or jeopardizes, and in light of the circumstances of special vulnerability and defenselessness in which displaced persons generally find themselves, this situation may be understood as a de facto lack of protection. This situation, according to the American Convention, obliges States to take positive measures to reverse the effects of their condition of weakness, vulnerability and defenselessness, including vis-à-vis the actions and practices of other 288 individuals. 278. The Commission considers that the phenomenon of forced displacement cannot be viewed in isolation from other violations, by virtue of its complexity and the broad range of human rights that it affects or jeopardizes, and in light of the circumstances of special weakness, vulnerability and 289 defenselessness in which displaced persons generally find themselves . The Inter-American Court has declared itself on the phenomenon of forced displacement in the following manner: The circumstances of the present case and the special and complex situation of vulnerability that affects those persons include but go beyond the content of the protection that States are bound to provide pursuant to article 22 of the Convention. In effect, displacement originates in the lack of protections suffered during the massacre and reveals its effects in violations of their personal integrity (...) and in the consequences of the failure to investigate the facts, which have led to impunity (...). Beyond the normative content of article 22 of the Convention, the situation of displacement examined here has also affected the right (...) of the victims to a decent life (...) in relation to failure to fulfill the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in those 290 rules. 279. In the case of the Moiwana Village vs. Suriname, the Court held that the fear that the displaced survivors felt for their safety and the lack of a criminal investigation of the facts deprived them 291 of their rights to movement and residence. 280. As indicated in the Evidence section, and as a consequence of the terror sown among the population as well as the total destruction of the places where the massacres occurred and the 286 I-A Court, Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 188. The Court has also coincided with the view of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 27, which declares that the right to freedom of movement and residence consists, inter alia, of the following: a) the right that everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence; b) the right of every person to return to and remain in his or her own country. The enjoyment of this right must not be made dependent on any particular purpose or reason for the person wanting to move or to stay in a place. 287 I-A Court, Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 168; Moiwana Village vs. Surinam. Judgment of 15 June 2005. Series C No. 124, Para. 110, and Ricardo Canese vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 31 August 2004. Series C No. 111, Para. 115. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 27 of 2 November 1999, paras. 1, 4, 5 and 19. 288 I-A Court, Chitay Nech et al. vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 25 May 2010, Para. 141 289 I-A Court, Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 177 290 I-A Court, Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 186; Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay. Sentencia 17 June 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 162 and 163; and “Instituto de Reeducación del Menor” vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 2 September 2004. Series C No. 112, Para. 164, and “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), Para. 191 291 I-A Court., Moiwana Village vs. Surinam. Judgment of 15 June 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 107 to 121; See also I-A Court, Ricardo Canese, Judgment of 31 August 2004. Series C No. 111, paras. 113 to 120.