46 is one of the worst things that could occur to us, if you burn the body of someone who died.” c) The separation of community members from their traditional lands 101. The proven facts demonstrate that a N’djuka community’s connection to its traditional land is of vital spiritual, cultural and material importance (supra paragraph 86(6)). Indeed, as the expert witnesses Thomas Polimé and Kenneth Bilby commented (supra paragraphs 79 and 80(e)), in order for the culture to preserve its very identity and integrity, the Moiwana community members must maintain a fluid and multidimensional relationship with their ancestral lands. 102. However, Moiwana Village and its surrounding traditional lands have been abandoned since the events of November 29, 1986 (supra paragraph 86(19)). Numerous community members are internally displaced within Suriname and the rest remain to this day as refugees in French Guiana (supra paragraph 86(18)). Unable to practice their customary means of subsistence and livelihood, many, if not all, have suffered poverty and deprivation since their flight from Moiwana Village (supra paragraph 86(18)). Ms. Difienjo testified before the Court that since the attack, her life “has been completely disturbed”; moreover, she feels that the plight of the refugees has been ignored by the State and emphasized that French Guiana “is not [her] place.” Mr. Ajintoena, for his part, stated that they “lost everything” after the events of 1986 and need “badly” to return to their traditional lands in order “to restore [their] lives.” He further testified that, with the attack, “the government destroyed the cultural tradition […] of the Maroon communities in Moiwana.” * * * 103. Taking into account the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the Moiwana community members have endured significant emotional, psychological, spiritual and economic hardship – suffering to a such a degree as to result in the State’s violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, to the detriment of said community members. X ARTICLE 22 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE) IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) Arguments of the representatives 104. Although the representatives did not expressly allege the violation of the right established in Article 22 of the American Convention, they argued the following: a) the alleged victims have been deprived of their customary means of subsistence due to their forcible expulsion from their traditional territory and their continuing inability to return; as a result of the foregoing, they live in poverty; and