evolutive interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Convention, taking into account the applicable norms of interpretation indicated in Article 29(b) of the Convention, this Court has considered that the said article protects the right not to be forcibly displaced within a State Party. 421 220. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the obligation to ensure freedom of movement and residence must also take into consideration the actions undertaken by the State to ensure that the displaced populations are able to return to their places of origin without running the risk of having their rights violated. In this regard, the Court reaffirms that the State’s obligation to protect the rights of displaced persons involves not only the duty to adopt measures of prevention, but also to provide the conditions required for a decorous and safe return to their usual place of residence or their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country. 422 To this end, their full participation in the planning and management of their return or reinsertion must be guaranteed.423 221. Similarly, since the events of this case took place in the context of a non-international armed conflict, the Court finds it useful and appropriate, as it has on other occasions, 424 to interpret the scope of the treaty-based obligations in a way that is complementary with the provisions of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind the latter’s specificity in this area,425 especially the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949;426 Article 3 common to the four Conventions; Protocol II additional to the Conventions (hereinafter also “Additional Protocol II”) to which the State is a party,427 and customary international humanitarian law.428 222. It should be recalled that, in other cases, the Court has had the opportunity to analyze the State’s responsibility taking into considerations some relevant principles of international humanitarian law, namely the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in the use of force in the context of non-international armed conflicts.429 In addition, when situations of displacement occur in this type of conflicts, the regulations on displacement contained in Additional Protocol II are also particularly useful for the application of the American Convention. In this regard, Article 17 of this Protocol prohibits the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Should such displacements have to be carried out, “all possible measures El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 186. 421 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, para. 188, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 186. 422 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 149, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 188. 423 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, para. 149, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 188. 424 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 179, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 187. 425 It should be recalled that international humanitarian law must be applied by the parties in the context of noninternational armed conflicts, provided that the events correspond to situations that occur because of and during an armed conflict. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the situation must be analyzed by the Court interpreting the American Convention in light of the pertinent provisions of international humanitarian law. Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, footnote 254. 426 See, in particular, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, adopted on August 12, 1949, at Geneva. Entry into force: October 21, 1950, and ratified by Colombia on November 8, 1961. 427 Colombia has been a party to Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts since August 14, 1995. 428 187. Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 429 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, paras. 212, 214 and 216. 77