13 Attorney’s Office because members of the security forces were involved. This failure rendered these remedies ineffective. 56. They specifically allege that on the date of the events, Luz Dary Ospina was a respected and recognized leader of the AMI and that the purpose of the persecution and threats to which she and her family were subjected was to disband that organization. As a result, her right of association was violated. The petitioners contend that Mrs. Ospina lost her furnishings and her house, which was torn down, and she cannot even contemplate either rebuilding it or making use of the vacant lot, because of the danger that returning to the community would involve. They therefore consider that the arbitrary dispossession of her home and the family’s displacement seriously affected the mental and moral integrity of the Ospina Hoyos family, their right to property and their freedom of movement and residence. The petitioners further contend that the remedies available within the domestic legal system were ineffective in clarifying the facts reported and redressing Ms. Ospina and her family. 57. Based on these considerations, the petitioners are requesting that the State be declared responsible for violations of the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, freedom of association, private property, freedom of movement and residence, and judicial protection, recognized in articles 5(1), 8(1), 16, 21(1), 21(2), 22(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the guarantees established in articles 1(1) and 27(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luz Dary Ospina and her next of kin. 58. In the merits phase, the petitioners are also alleging the violation of Article 19, to the detriment of the child Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina, daughter of Luz Dary Ospina and 18 years old at the time of the family’s displacement. The petitioners contend that the forced displacement triggered an abrupt change in the child’s life, as she had to abandon both her home and school; suffering which was aggravated by the arbitrary dispossession of her belongings. Case 12.621 – Specific Allegations – Ana Teresa Yarce et al. 59. At the time of the events, María del Socorro Mosquera was serving as President of the Las Independencias Women’s Association (AMI), while Mery Naranjo and Ana Teresa Yarce were serving, respectively, as Chair and Auditor of the Community Action Board of the Independencias III neighborhood in Comuna 13. All three women were recognized community leaders. 60. The petition states that in the aftermath of Operation Orión conducted between October 16 and 18, 2002, the military takeover of Comuna 13 continued and new arrests were made. They contend that on November 12, 2002, in a combined police/army action, Ms. Mosquera, Ms. Naranjo and Ms. Yarce were detained in Comuna 13. 61. The petitioners maintain that this was an irregular detention, done without a court order, and that a child in military attire was involved. The three women were deprived of their freedom illegally and, after being questioned, were formally implicated in a legal proceeding; and they were accused of committing serious offenses, without even a shred of the evidence required under Colombian criminal law. The defenders were released after being held for 11 days in a police station’s cells and in Medellin’s “El Buen Pastor” women’s prison. A provisional court ruling ordered their release, and acknowledged the lack of evidence proving their involvement in the crimes of which they were accused. On May 22, 2003, the competent court upheld that decision on its merits. The petitioners argue that taking the three women into custody and implicating them in a criminal case – involving, inter alia, sedition- unjustly and arbitrarily branded them as participants in the armed conflict,