72 Mr. Omeara Miraval, ordered after the attacks and nearly a year after the displacement, measures of protection for the members of the Omeara and Álvarez families (supra para. 127), who were also witnesses to the attacks on the three victims. The foregoing demonstrates that the displaced family members did not receive any protection from the State in view of the risk they were running and the body of evidence in the case does not show that the measures ordered were, in fact, adopted. The Court understands that the causes that led certain family members to be displaced are complex, since the displacement was not caused by multiple circumstances rather than a single event. 276. It is clear that the State did not adopt protection measures for the members of the Omeara and Álvarez families and, in particular, for those who were displaced. 277. The failure to adopt measures, the actions of state agents in collaboration with illegal armed groups for the commission of the three attacks against their relatives and the lack of due diligence and progress in the investigations, leading to ongoing impunity surrounding he events, have all been fundamental factors in creating the risk that led to the displacement of some of the victims' relatives. 278. Consequently, the Court considers that Colombia is responsible for the violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, for the failure of duty to respect the right of movement and residence, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano and their three children, Elba Katherine Omeara Álvarez, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Álvarez and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez, as well as in relation to the rights of the child, enshrined in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the victims who were children at the time the events occurred. 279. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention due to the alleged threats suffered by Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, this Court notes that although it is clear from the facts that the victims’ next of kin were generally subjected to different incidences of intimidation and threats, regarding the specific situation of Mrs. Carmen Omeara, there is only her statement given on August 17, 2010, in which she stated that one day she "was walking in front of church and a guy approached [her] who touched her shoulder from behind and […] [l]old her 'quietly, you look prettier,' [he] said if [ Noel Emiro Omeara Miraval, her father], [t]old her something she shouldn’t say anything,"305 and that her mother was told that she had to leave Aguachica, along with other relatives, on the day of the attack on Mr. Héctor Sánchez (supra paragraph 100). In this regard, the State only acknowledged that it had not conducted any investigation (supra para. 25(b)). Apart from said statements, this Court does not have additional information or evidence that would allow it to conclude the violation of Article 5 of the Convention to her detriment for the aforementioned threats. 280. The representatives alleged the violation of the right to privacy. The Court notes that the representatives may allege violations other than those indicated by the Commission.306 This Court also notes that in this case, beyond the generic references to the violation of the protection of privacy of the next of kin due to the consequences for their private life due to their displacement, the representatives did not express specific grounds that could be distinguished from their allegations regarding the non-observance of Articles 22(1) and 5(1) of the Convention. In addition, the Court finds no reason in the case to examine the facts of the case in relation to Article 11(2) of the treaty. Therefore, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the alleged violation. Testimonial statement given by Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval on August 17, 2010, supra. Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 184. 305 306