2. Freedom of movement and residence182 79. As regards the right to freedom of movement recognized in Article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Court has ruled that “freedom of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of each person.”183 The caselaw indicates that the provision contemplates “the right of all persons to move freely from one place to another and to establish themselves in the place of their choice,” 184 and protects “the right to leave any country freely, including one’s own country.”185 It also consists of: “(a) the right of those lawfully in the territory of a State to move about freely in that State and to choose their place of residence; and (b) the right of each person to enter their country and remain in it.”186 80. An evolutive interpretation of the norm has enabled the Court additionally to consider that the provision also protects “the right not to be forcefully displaced within a State Party to the Convention.”187 In that connection, the Court has considered that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are particularly relevant for determining the content and scope of Article 22 of the American Convention.188 According to those principles “internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, [or] violations of human rights ..., and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”189 81. Thus, the Court has recognized that: given the complexity of the issue of internal displacement and the broad array of human rights it affects or jeopardizes, and given the especially vulnerable and defenseless status of most displaced persons, they could be deemed to have, de facto, no protection [...] Under the American Convention, this would oblige States to grant them preferential treatment and take active measures to reverse the effects of their weak, vulnerable, and defenseless status, including vis-à-vis acts and practices of individual third parties. 190 82. In the context of the armed conflict in Guatemala, furthermore, the Commission reiterates that, as the CEH mentioned: The displacement of the civilian population in Guatemala was notable in the history of the internal armed conflict for its massive character and destructive impact. It was the most immediate and heartbreaking manifestation of the rending of the social fabric. It entailed the dismemberment of families and communities as well as altering the cultural ties that held them together. The unprecedented terror caused by the massacres and the ravaging of entire populations triggered the mass flight of different populations, ... including a significant number of Ladino families ... That population, in the main peasant farmers, fled to a variety of places that appeared to offer refuge from the killing. [Free translation] 191 83. The court has also pointed out people may be forced to leave their usual place of residence, because of both the State’s acts and its omissions; in other words, “owing to the acts of State agents when perpetrating the 182Article 22 (1) of the American Convention provides: “1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.” 183 I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 168, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2004, Series C. No. 111 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Ricardo Canese Judgment"), par. 115. 184 I/A Court H.R., Ricardo Canese Judgment, par. 115. 185 I/A Court H.R., Ricardo Canese Judgment, par. 114. 186 I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 168. 187 I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 188. 188 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C. No. 124 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Moiwana Community Judgment"), par. 111; I/A Court H.R., Chitay Nech Judgment, par. 140; and I/A Court H.R., Río Negro Massacres Judgment, par. 173. 189 I/A Court H.R., Chitay Nech Judgment, par. 140; I/A Court H.R., Río Negro Massacres Judgment, par. 173. 190 I/A Court H.R., Chitay Nech Judgment, par. 141; I/A Court H.R., Río Negro Massacres Judgment, par. 174. 191 CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Annex 3, par. 4193. 22