addition, they indicated that although some programs existed supposedly designed to protect the displaced persons, they were controlled by the same forces responsible for the displacement and required the creation of an official list. Similarly, although some programs existed that were intended to ensure the return of those displaced, they had not been effective. The representatives considered that the Court should take into account the information contained in their pleadings and motions brief, although of a general nature, in order to assess how the displacement affected the victims of the massacres because, in contexts of extreme violence, it is difficult to document the displacement circumstances of each person affected. 139. The representatives also argued that the enforced displacement had given rise to numerous human rights violations, including the violation of the right to privacy and the rights of the family, the violation of the right to integrity, and the violation of the right to freedom of movement. Regarding the right to privacy, they argued that it is intrinsically linked to the life project of the victims, and therefore argued that the enforced displacement had clearly affected the victims’ possibility of leading their life autonomously, and had entailed a grave violation of their right to privacy and family life. 3) Arguments of the State 140. The State did not present any specific legal arguments with regard to the alleged violations, but merely stated, in relation to the alleged violation of the loss of property and destruction of possessions resulting from the events alleged in this case, the displacement of the surviving victims, and the facts relating to the context of violence in which they occurred, that it acknowledged “those facts contained in reliable testimony of surviving victims, as well as those described in official reports [of the] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, international protection agencies that were or still are part of the United Nations system, as well as those contained in the Report of the Truth Commission of the United Nations, created by the Peace Accords of El Salvador. In addition, the State noted that the representatives had described the general phenomenon of the enforced displacements of the civilian population during the Salvadoran internal armed conflict, and had not been very specific in relation to the displacements that took place as a result of the events denounced in this particular case. C. Considerations of the Court 141. In light of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, and considering the gravity of the facts of the instant case, the Court will now examine the alleged international responsibility of El Salvador for the violation of the rights to life,154 to personal integrity,155 to personal liberty,156 to privacy,157 of the child,158 to property,159 and to freedom of movement and 154 Article 4.1 of the American Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 155 The pertinent part of Article 5 of the American Convention indicates that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 156 The pertinent part of Article 7 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 157 Article 11(2) of the Convention indicates that: “[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 158 Article 19 of the American Convention prescribes that: “[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 43