11 45. Ms. Rúa Figueroa took a number of measures as a result of the events described above. She turned to the Human Rights Office of the Departmental Prosecutor’s Office, to make a statement of forced displacement; she filed a request with the Social Solidarity Network, and filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Attorney General, Medellín Sectional Office, concerning the looting of her home and the displacement of her and her family. On July 10, 2002, the Municipal Disaster Prevention and Care System (SIMPAD) of the Office of the Mayor of Medellín, certified that Ms. Rúa and her family had been displaced from their home by the armed fighting between the self-defense groups and the militia groups. 46. Nevertheless, ten years after these events, neither Ms. Rúa Figueroa nor her family has been listed in the Single Register of Displaced Persons and, therefore, have not received the humanitarian assistance to which they are entitled. They are still unable to make free use and enjoyment of their house, and the State has not provided them with a housing subsidy to make good their needs. 47. In light of these considerations, the petitioners are requesting that the State be declared responsible for violations of the rights to personal integrity, freedom of association, private property, freedom of movement and residence, and judicial protection and guarantees, established in articles 5(1), 8(1), 16, 21(1), 22(1), 22(2) and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and her next of kin. They further maintain that the rights of the child protected under Article 19 of the American Convention were violated to the detriment of Bárbara del Sol Palacios Rúa, Úrsula Manuela Palacios Rúa, and Valentina Estefanía Tobón Rúa, the daughters of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and minors at the time of their forced displacement. Case 12.596 – Specific Allegations – Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas et al. 48. At the time of the events, Ms. Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas had been serving as Executive Director of the Las Independencias Women’s Association (AMI) for approximately one year. She was firmly committed to community service and community leadership, and had previously served as President of the AMI in 1998 and again in 2000; she had also chaired the Community Action Board from 1994 to 1996, and was involved in other community organizations. She lived in her own house with her husband, Oscar Tulio Hoyos Oquendo, and their children: Edid Yazmín, Oscar Darío, and Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina. 49. The petitioners allege that on November 12, 2002, in the wake of a combined military/police operation, persons living in the Independencia II neighborhood learned that paramilitary groups were attempting to put a finish to the AMI. The petitioners state that Ms. Ospina learned from the Head of the Educational Center –which was part of the official elementary education system- that her name was on a list of persons whom the paramilitary were planning to assassinate. She therefore immediately left the neighborhood, along with her husband, three children and her son-in-law Fabio Alberto Rodríguez Buriticá, for the sake of their personal safety. However, the petitioners allege that because paramilitary were breaking into the homes abandoned by persons who fled the neighborhood under threat, her husband and their two sons went back to the neighborhood to protect the house. 50. The petitioners report that on March 3, 2003, members of the security forces, five persons in civilian dress but with no identification, and three men wearing hoods appeared at the home of the Hoyos Ospina family and proceeded to search it, without a court order. Although the persons in