48 108. The proven facts establish that Moiwana Village and its surrounding traditional lands, formerly in habited by the Moiwana community members, have been abandoned since the events of November 29, 1986 (supra paragraph 86(19)). Up to the date of this judgment, Moiwana community members continue to be either internally displaced within Suriname or live as refugees in French Guiana (supra paragraph 86(18)). Thus, the Tribunal may properly exercise jurisdiction over the ongoing nature of the community’s displacement, which – although initially produced by the 1986 attack on Moiwana Village – constitutes a situation that persisted after the State recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in 1987 and continues to the present day. * * 109. * Article 22 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. 2. Every person has the right to leave any country freely, including his own. 3. The exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others. 4. The exercise of the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest. 5. No one can be expelled from the territory of the state of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it. […] 110. This Court has held that liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person.65 Furthermore, the Tribunal shares the views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee as set out in its General Comment No. 27, which states that the right to freedom of movement and residence consists, inter alia, in the following: a) the right of all those lawfully within a State to move freely in that State, and to choose his or her place of residence; and b) the right of a person to enter his or her country and the right to remain in one’s country. In addition, the enjoyment of this right must not be made dependent on any particular purpose or reason for the person wanting to move or to stay in a place.66 111. Of particular relevance to the present case, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons issued Guiding Principles in 1998,67 which are based upon existing international humanitarian law and human 65 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115; U.N., Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 27, November 2, 1999. 66 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 65, para. 115; U.N., Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 27, November 2, 1999, paras. 1, 4, 5 and 19. 67 U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2. February 11, 1998.