Court concludes that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, all in relation to the obligations established in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Rosendo García Sermeño, Félix Lux, Félix Salvatierra Morales, Andrea Castellanos Ceballos, Braulia Sarceño Cardona, Edelmira Girón Galbez and Paula Morales, and the children, Norma Morales Alonzo, Victoriano Salvatierra Morales, Antonio Santos Serech and Joselino García Sermeño. The State also violated Article 19 of the Convention in the case of these children (infra paras. 88 to 93). b.2 Right to freedom of movement and residence 76. With regard to this right, the Court has indicated that “the right to freedom of movement and residence, protected by Article 22(1) of the American Convention, is an essential condition for the free development of the individual and includes, inter alia, the right of those who are legally within a State to move freely within it and also to choose their place of residence.”119 77. It should also be emphasized that this right may be violated formally or by de facto restrictions when the State has not established the conditions, or provided the means, that permit it to be exercised.120 The Court has established that, owing to the complexity of the phenomenon of internal displacement and the broad range of human rights that it affects or jeopardizes, and based on the circumstances of special vulnerability and defenselessness in which those displaced generally find themselves, their situation can be understood as a de facto situation of lack of protection. Such de facto violations can occur when anyone is a victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the necessary guarantees for them to freely travel and reside in the territory in question. 121 The Court has also asserted that the absence of an effective investigation into violent acts may give rise to or perpetuate forced displacement or exile.122 78. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the obligation to ensure the right of freedom of movement and residence should also include the actions undertaken by the State to ensure that displaced populations are able to return to their places of origin without risk of their rights being violated. In this regard, the Court reaffirms that the State obligation to protect the rights of those displaced entails not only the duty to adopt preventive measures, but also to provide the necessary conditions for a dignified and safe return to their usual place of residence or their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country. To this end, the full participation of those displaced in the planning and management of their return or reintegration must be guaranteed. 123 79. Lastly, the Court notes that forced displacement is also of a permanent nature124 until the conditions are established for the victims to be able to return to their territory. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 31. Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 274. 119 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, paras. 119 and 120, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 274. 120 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192., para. 139, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 274 121 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra para. 120, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra para. 274. 122 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 149, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, supra, para. 190. 123 124 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of Alvarado 24