68 298. From the findings of fact it is apparent that the transfer of the displaced from their places of origin to three refuge points, the living conditions of the displaced in those receiving areas, and the acts of harassment, threats and violence during the period of displacement, constituted a breach of their personal integrity. 299. Regarding Article 5, the Court has established that [t]he right to physical, mental and moral integrity of all persons and the obligation of the State to treat the individuals...with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, entails the 321 reasonable prevention of situations that may impair protected rights. 300. As established in the preceding section, displacement also generates the obligation to bestow special treatment in favor of those affected and to adopt measures of a positive nature to reverse its effects. 301. With regard to the living conditions of especially vulnerable groups, the Inter-American Court has ruled on the State's duty to provide them with sufficient and adequate water, food and health 322 services as part of its obligation to guarantee a dignified life. It has also ruled on the State's duty to adopt positive and specific measures aimed at satisfying the right to a dignified life, especially when it 323 involves vulnerable and at risk persons, whose attention is a matter of priority. The Court has also 324 established that displacement has affected the right to a dignified life. 302. Based on these parameters, it is appropriate for the Commission to examine the situation of violence and security and the living conditions during the displacement which affected the right to personal integrity of the displaced persons. 303. In the first place, the Commission has established in the foregoing paragraphs that the State did not adopt measures designed to prevent the breach of the right to personal integrity of the members of the Cacarica basin before the imminent displacement. In the second place, from the visit made by the IACHR to the Turbo Stadium and the State's response and the proceedings in precautionary measures No. 70/99, it is apparent that the displaced continued to be harassed, threatened, disappeared and killed which prompted the IACHR to grant precautionary measures in favor of the displaced persons. The constant threats and acts of violence were also a reason why these people continued to be displaced without being able to return to their lands for over four years. During this period the State failed to 325 establish the conditions that would allow the displaced persons’ safe return. 304. In addition, even after their resettlement in the areas of return (“Nueva Vida” and “Esperanza en Dios”) the displaced continued to be targets of harassment, threats and violence, which justified the precautionary measures remaining in force until the date of approval of the present report. Despite the fact that the displaced have returned to their land with the assistance of the State, the Commission observes that the State failed to ensure the conditions that would allow those who have returned to fully enjoy their right to personal integrity, and that the situation of insecurity and danger 321 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 118; Case García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 222; Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 59; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 100. 322 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paras. 195 et seq. 323 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 162. 324 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 134. 325 See I/A Court H.R., Case of Moiwana, Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C No. 124, para. 120.