321. It has been proved that, between 150 and 320 of the families displaced towards the end of February 1997 were accommodated in the Turbo sports arena and in two shelters built with the aid of international agencies and Government resources, through the former Social Solidarity Network (supra para. 117). Most of these families remained in Turbo and in the El Cacique - Bahía Cupica (Chocó) hacienda for more than two years. Numerous families were split up or separated as a result of the displacement. It has also been possible to verify that, in Turbo, the living conditions of the displaced were characterized by overcrowding, absence of privacy, lack of basic health care services, unbalanced and insufficient nutrition, and insufficient or poor quality water. In November 1997, aid was officially suspended to 75 families “due to lack of funds.” All the foregoing led to the proliferation of diseases, with the risk of an epidemic. The Court has also been able to confirm that the measures taken by the State to protect the population were insufficient (supra para. 118). 322. During the time that the displacement lasted for those who returned, the State provided limited aid for the return: (a) humanitarian aid to 10 families who underwent voluntary repatriation from Jaqué (Panama) to Nueva Vida in 2004; (b) actions in the Cacarica river valley addressed at providing attention to the communities; 570 (c) food for Cupica and Turbo from May 1999 and January 2000, respectively, until December 2000, valued at 1,243,475,684 Colombian pesos; (d) payment of public services of water and electricity for Turbo and the two shelters, valued at 68,233,062 Colombian pesos, and (e) provision of “toiletry kits, dishes, cooking utensils and stoves valued at 172,676,618 Colombian pesos.571 323. The measures of basic assistance provided by the State during the period of displacement were insufficient, because the physical and mental conditions that those displaced had to face for almost four years were not in keeping with the minimum standards required in such cases. The overcrowding, the food, the supply and management of water, as well as the failure to adopt measures with regard to health care, reveal non-compliance with the State’s obligation to provide protection following the displacement, with the direct result of the violation of the right to personal integrity of those who suffered the forced displacement. 324. Consequently, the State failed to comply with its obligations to ensure humanitarian assistance and a safe return, within the framework of the right to freedom of movement and residence, and the protection of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Articles 22(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the Cacarica communities that were in a situation of forced displacement over a three- to four-year period.572 B.2. Right to protection of the family 325. The Court has indicated in other cases that the right to protection of the family involves, among other obligations, that of promoting as extensively as possible, the development and enhancement of the family unit.573 In this case, the Court notes that there is information on overcrowded conditions, lack of privacy, and harm to the family structures (supra para. 118). This reveals that, while the situation of displacement of the Cacarica communities lasted, the 570 Cf. Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of August 27, 2009, para. 111 (evidence file, folio 7597): Visits to provide comprehensive care in 2005, and one in 2006, for medical-surgical care; food, medicines, and psychosocial care; in coordination with Comunidad Hábitat Finanzas (CHF), schools were constructed in the districts of Bogota (1), San Higinio (1) and El Limón (1), and 150 temporary shelters were erected in San Higinio, Bocas del Limón, La Tapa, Puente América, Santa Lucia and Barranquilla. 571 Cf. Joint Verification Commission, Management Report, March 2004 (evidence file, folios 4986 and ff.). 572 See Annexes I and III. 573 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 125, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 145. See also, Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66. 108