-124to obtain from the competent State bodies the clarification of the illegal facts and the corresponding responsibilities, by investigation and prosecution.246 220. In this case, the representatives have not proved specifically that the State curtailed the freedom of expression of the next of kin of the persons disappeared and deprived of life, by eliminating it or restricting it beyond what is legitimately allowed. In keeping with its case law, the right to the truth of the next of kin has been considered when declaring the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (supra paras. 170, 171, 178, 182, 183, 187, 192, 204, 211 and 212), and also in the reparations (infra paras. 265 to 273). Consequently, the Court considers that the State has not violated Article 13 of the American Convention. XI ARTICLE 22 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE) Arguments of the Commission 221. The Commission did not allege the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention. Arguments of the representatives 222. In their allegations during the public hearing, the representatives stated that: (a) The facts of January 14, 1990, in Pueblo Bello have obliged the alleged victims’ next of kin to undergo forced displacement from the place where they lived and worked and, 15 years after the facts occurred, they have been unable to return without fear to the jurisdiction and, in most cases, to their previous conditions and quality of life, and (b) In the instant case, the State has not guaranteed the right of the alleged victims’ next of kin to live and remain in Pueblo Bello and it has not reestablished the conditions or provided the means that would allow them to return voluntarily to the jurisdiction, without fear, and with security and dignity. 223. In their final written arguments, in addition to confirming their allegations during the public hearing, the representatives alleged that: (a) Although they had not referred to the displacement of the alleged victims’ next of kin in their requests and arguments brief, the facts presented in the application, explained, clarified and proved by both the Commission and the representatives during the proceedings before the Court, allow it to be established that forced internal displacement occurred and, thus, Article 22(1) of the Convention was violated, which the Court can declare by applying the iura novit curia principle, and 246 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 62; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 214, para. 62, and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 97.