violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof.68 67. In the instant case, the petitioners alleged that military personnel detained i) Irma Isabel Deras after raiding her home; ii) Otilia Flores and Elba Flores after raiding their home; iii) Luis Rolando Deras; and iv) several family members of Mr. Deras in June 1984. The IACHR reiterates that the State has not contested that information. 68. The Commission notes that the State did not submit information regarding the legal basis for the detentions carried out to the detriment of the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. The IACHR notes that, according to the information submitted, the arrests were carried out without a judicial warrant and with no reason to claim the existence of flagrante delicto. On the contrary, the Commission takes note of the fact that they were carried out after arbitrarily raiding several homes of Mr. Deras' next-of-kin. That being so, the IACHR considers that the detentions were carried out illegally and arbitrarily. 69. In addition, the IACHR has information indicating that some of the family members of Mr. Deras were under-age children at the time of the facts cited in this section.69 Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State violated tits duties to afford the special protection to minors established in Article 19 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 70. Regarding the right recognized in Article 22, 1 of the American Convention, the Court has pointed out that it establishes protection of the right to freedom of movement and residence. That is because all persons lawfully within a State have the right to move freely within that State and to choose their place of residence; and the right to enter, to remain in, or to leave the State’s territory without any unlawful interference.70 In addition, the Court has indicated that the right to freedom of movement and residence may be affected when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the guarantees necessary to allow him/her to move freely and reside in the territory in question, even when those threats and harassments are carried out by non-State actors.71 71. The Court found that Article 22.1 of the Convention had been violated to the detriment of several peoples who had been forced into exile “finding themselves (...) without being able or wanting to return home owing to a well-founded fear of persecution."72 In that regard, the Court has referred to the social, family, and economic impact of exile for those persons. 73 In addition, the failure to conduct effective investigation into acts of violence, and the impunity surrounding them, may undermine victims' trust in the justice system and help create conditions for lack of security. For that reason, impunity may foster or perpetuate exile.74 72. In the instant case, the Commission observes that Héctor Deras, the victim's brother, left the country due to acts of violence, threats, and harassment against the family and due, in particular, to the alleged existence of a plan by military personnel to murder him. The IACHR likewise notes that Alba Luz, the victim's sister, could not return to Honduras during the time of the facts due to the same circumstances. 73. The Commission considers that the failure to investigate these matters, as the next section will explain, as well as the absence of effective protection measures, is sufficiently well substantiated by the departure from I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 54. 69 The boys were Herminio Deras and José Herminio Deras, while the girls were Lorena Deras and Sandra Hernández. 70 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 138. 71 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, par. 220. 72 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paras. 140, 141, and 144. 73 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 141. 74 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 309. 68 13