Court will examine the alleged lack of an effective investigation of the complaints filed by Mrs. B.A. and her family in Chapter VIII.4, concerning judicial guarantees and judicial protection. VIII.2. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS 161. In this Chapter, the Court will examine the alleged violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence. 268 A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 162. The Commission argued that the State violated the right to freedom of movement and residence to the detriment of B.A. and her children L.A., N.A. and M.A.; of her mother, C.A.; of her sister E.A. and her children, J.A. and K.A., and of her brothers F.A. and G.A. First, it mentioned that following the forced disappearance of Y.A., family A suffered the violation of this right, as declared by the Court in the Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. It also argued that family A was forcibly displaced and had to leave Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa for the second time after the death of A.A., as a consequence of the alleged lack of investigation of the threats prior to his death, the impunity surrounding his murder, the progressive acts of harassment, the attacks against them and fear of being killed, as well as the absence of effective measures of protection after the nine days of prayers, in violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Specifically, it stated that B.A., together with her children and her mother C.A., had temporarily fled to Mexico in search of better security conditions, while E.A., along with her children, had been displaced and had taken refuge in another part of Guatemala. It also held that F.A. and G.A. stayed in Mexico because they were unable to realize their plan return to Guatemala owing to the facts of this case. At the same time, the Commission argued that these violations affected the personal integrity of the individuals mentioned. 163. The representatives agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission and added that “the situation of harassment and the grave danger in which the family found itself […] was known by various state authorities; despite this, they did not provide adequate protection.” They also argued that the fear of being a target of new attacks forced the members of family A to move away from their homes and settle in different places, “owing to the lack of investigation of the murder and the subsequent threats, and the lack of adequate and effective protection measures by the State […]”. Consequently, B.A., E.A. and their respective children were currently in a situation of internal displacement. At the same time, the representatives argued that the displacement of those individuals also affected their personal integrity. 164. The State denied that it had violated family A’s right to freedom of movement and residence. It indicated that its domestic legislation guarantees those rights and that family A. had decided to leave their place of residence freely and without any type of constraint or restriction, and had moved to a place that they considered suitable, in order to remove themselves from the supposed threats and intimidations. Regarding these threats, the State reiterated that the family had never filed a complaint, and therefore it could be not be claimed that the State knew about those threats. Moreover, it added that it is not possible to conclude that those rights were violated because of the supposed situation of impunity surrounding the case of Mr. A.A., since such rights are not closely related and are of a different nature. In its final written arguments, the State referred to a report issued by the General Office of Immigration, on April 22, 2013, which stated that there Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 123. The Court reiterates that cases in which the victims of human rights violations are children are especially grave, since they are holders of the rights established in the American Convention, and also enjoy the special measures of protection contemplated in Article 19, which must be defined according to the particular circumstances of each case. Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 121, and Case of Furlan and Relatives v. Argentina, supra, para. 125. 268 Article 22(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it, subject the provisions of the law.” 51