71 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the three children of Mr. Omeara Miraval. In this chapter, the Court will make considerations as relevant to said acknowledgment. 271. Secondly, it should be noted that the Commission and the representatives also alleged the violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano and their three children, Elba Katherine, Manuel Guillermo and Claudia Marcela, all three with surnames Omeara Álvarez. In this regard, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for its omission in the investigation of the alleged acts of forced displacement (supra paras. 25(c) and 35(c)). However, this Court considers that the dispute remains regarding the alleged responsibility of the State for the violation of Article 22(1) of the Convention. 272. The Court has indicated that freedom of movement is an essential condition for the free development of the individual.301 In this sense, it has established that the right of movement and residence consists of: (a) the right of those who are legally within a State to move freely in that State and choose their place of residence, and (b) the right of a person to enter their country and stay there. The enjoyment of this right does not depend on any particular purpose or motive of the person who wishes to move or remain in a place.302. Similarly, it protects the right not to be forcibly displaced within a State Party and not to have to forcibly leave the territory of the State in which they legally find themselves.303 This Court has also stated that the right to movement and residence can be violated formally or by de facto restrictions if the State has not established the conditions or provided the means to exercise it.304. 273. In this sense, the Court will analyze whether the displacement is directly attributable to State actions and whether, after the State became aware of the acts of displacement, within the framework of its obligations, it adopted actions aimed at enabling a safe return or whether it provided assistance to displaced persons. In this regard, both the Commission and the representatives argued that the risk that forced them to move was created by the State due to three factors: (a) collaboration with paramilitary groups to commit crimes in Aguachica; (b) the lack of progress in the investigations, and (c) the lack of protection measures once family members, including minors, were aware of the risk. 274. It is proven that in a period of eight months, the next of kin of the three victims of violent acts suffered the loss of their father, grandfather and brother, including a direct impact on their lives due to the consequences of the events suffered by their loved ones. Furthermore, the impunity that persists in this case is proven due to the lack of due diligence in the investigations of the events that occurred against Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. In addition, as recognized by the State, the alleged threats received by Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval have not been investigated (supra paras. 25(b) and 35(b)). 275. These facts caused an environment of mistrust, anguish and reasonable fear for the displaced relatives. It should be noted that it is an undisputed fact that on August 9, 1995, the Regional Prosecutor of Barranquilla, in charge of the criminal investigation of the case of Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 189. 302 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, para. 115, and Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 214. 303 Cf. Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 188, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 308. 304 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 189. 301