* 151. Lastly, the Court understands that, from the facts established in the preceding paragraphs and, as stipulated in Articles 1(1), 11 and 21 of the American Convention, the State had the obligation to investigate the interferences in the family homes and the violation of the victims’ right to property. The obligation to guarantee the said rights by means of a serious, complete and effective investigation into what happened will be assessed in Chapter X of this judgment. IX RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY, AND RIGHTS OF THE CHILD A. Arguments of the parties 152. The Commission indicated that, in this case, the threats to the alleged victims were made by members of the police forces and resulted in the victims’ displacement from their usual place of residence owing to the lack of protection from the danger they faced. Irrespective of the fact that they only moved house for a short time or that some members of the family have returned, the mere fact that they had to move to protect themselves is sufficient to establish the State’s responsibility for violating the right embodied in Article 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of all the persons included in the list of those displaced.190 In addition, regarding the children, it indicated that the State had also violated Article 19 of the American Convention. 153. The representatives agreed in substance with the Commission’s arguments and indicated that the displacements produced negative effects on the families and on their members, such as the loss of their homes, unemployment, deterioration in their living conditions, interruption of the education of the children, rupture of the previous harmonious relations of the family, and serious psychological repercussions. They concluded that the State was responsible for the said displacement, because of its failure to prevent and to avoid human rights violations against the alleged victims, which it knew had taken place, and for failing to provide the necessary guarantees so that they could live in Guanayén in safety. Also, the State was responsible for the direct actions of its police agents who participated in the violent incidents against the family that resulted in their displacement. 154. In addition, they argued that there had been a direct effect on the entire family owing to the constant threats and persecution suffered by its members, the displacement of which they were victims, the disruption of their community, the fragmentation of the family group, and the loss, for many of its members, of the essential father figure, owing to the 190 Cf. Commission’s Report No. 11/10, supra note 4, folio 146: Justina Barrios, Eloisa Barrios, Beatriz Adriana Cabrera Barrios, Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios, Luilmari Carolina Guzmán Barrios, Luiseidys Yulianny Guzmán Barrios, Elbira Barrios, Darelbis Carolina Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Elvis Sarais Colorado Barrios, Cirilo Antonio Colorado Barrios, Lorena del Valle Pugliese Barrios, Maritza Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios, Génesis Andreina Navarro Barrios, Víctor Tomas Navarro Barrios, Heilin Alexandra Navarro Barrios, Néstor Caudi Barrios, Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Marcos Antonio Díaz Barrios, Sandra Marivi Betancourt Barrios, Juner José Betancourt Barrios, Wilneidys Betania Pimentel Barrios, Wilker Felipe Pimentel Barrios, Inés Barrios, Daniela Yotselín Ortiz Barrios, Edinson Alexander Ortiz Barrios, Johjan Ramón Perozo Barrios, Luisa del Carmen Barrios, Gustavo Ravelo, Lusiany Nazareth Ravelo Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, Ronis David Barrios Alzul, Roniel Alberto Barrios Alzul, Luís Alberto Alzul, Dalila Ordalys Ortuño, Jorge Antonio Barrios Ortuño, Carlos Alberto Ortuño, Junclis Esmil Rangel Teran, Annarys Alexandra Barrios Rangel, Juan José Barrios, Orianny Nazareth Pelae and Oriana Nazareth Pelae, Pablo Julián Solórzano Barrios, Beneraiz de la Rosa and Danilo David Solórzano de la Rosa. 52