49 rights standards. The Court considers that many of these guidelines illuminate the reach and content of Article 22 of the Convention in the context of forced displacement. For the purposes of the instant case, then, the Tribunal emphasizes the following Principles: 1(1). Internally displaced persons shall enjoy, in full equality, the same rights and freedoms under international and domestic law as do other persons in their country. They shall not be discriminated against in the enjoyment of any rights and freedoms on the ground that they are internally displaced. 5. All authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons. 8. Displacement shall not be carried out in a manner that violates the rights to life, dignity, liberty and security of those affected. 9. States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples, minorities, peasants, pastoralists and other groups with a special dependency on and attachment to their lands. 14(1). Every internally displaced person has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his or her residence. 28(1). Competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well as provide the means, which allow internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. Such authorities shall endeavour to facilitate the reintegration of returned or resettled internally displaced persons. 112. Turning to the pleadings of the case sub judice, the representatives have submitted arguments on the general subject of Article 22 of the Convention, stating that the Moiwana community members have suffered a “forced eviction” from their ancestral lands, and asserting that, since the events of November 29, 1986, Suriname has not made any effort “to assist or facilitate [their] return” to those lands. On the contrary, the representatives argue, “[the State’s] acts and omissions, that violate the American Convention, have made it impossible for the [alleged] victims to return” to Moiwana Village. 113. The record clearly demonstrates that, until the Moiwana community members obtain justice for the events of 1986, they are convinced that they cannot return to their ancestral territory. Andre Ajintoena testified that after the attack he briefly visited the area with others only to document and take pictures of the site. Once the group had finished, many felt ill; according to Mr. Ajintoena, they realized that “things weren’t right, it wasn’t proper, because according to our culture you can’t go back to the place without having arrangements made.” By having returned without “applying the religious [and] cultural rules” – that is, performing the necessary death rituals and achieving reconciliation with the spirits of those killed in the 1986 raid (supra paragraph 86(7) – 86(9)) – Mr. Ajintoena and the others believed that they had seriously offended those spirits and, as a result, began to suffer physical and psychological maladies. All of the community members who testified before the Court expressed a similar fear of avenging spirits, and affirmed that they could only live in Moiwana Village again if their traditional lands first were purified.