7 in a structured way by the military forces and the paramilitary campaign against the civilian population in various regions of the country, with the “justification and veneer of actions in the context of ‘battling the 11 counterinsurgency’”. 31. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of Marino López’s right to life and personal integrity. In this regard, they consider that the State did not protect or adopt measures to prevent and halt Marino López’s being tortured and murdered. They allege that he endured an imminent threat against his life and personal integrity before being beheaded and he felt vulnerable, and therefore he was the victim of a violation of his right to personal, psychological and moral integrity. 12 They allege that Marino López was subjected to “dehumanization and denial of his humanity” , and given that his extrajudicial execution was committed against the background of a general and systematic attack, it represents a crime against humanity. They allege that the State’s responsibility is aggravated given the brutality of Marino López’s execution, in full view of the community members. 32. They allege that Marino López’s immediate family suffered effects of the violations inflicted on Marino López and the denial of justice and the lack of a State response, which produced feelings of pain and helplessness injuring their integrity and their dignity, and therefore they are also victims of a violation of their right to psychological and moral integrity. 33. In the same sense, they allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and personal integrity of the communities’ members. They allege that the crimes committed against Marino López produced collective feelings of helplessness, fear and anxiety, which fractured the processes of peace and social harmony in these communities, and affected their community life and the integrity of their lands. They allege that both Marino López’s immediate family and the members of the community bore witness to the acts of torture and decapitation suffered by Marino López, as well as all the circumstances surrounding his execution, which caused them pain and intense anguish. In addition, the petitioners maintain that “Operation Genesis”, the crime against Marino López and forced displacement fractured the Community's organizational levels and unity and therefore the psychological and moral integrity of its members has been violated. They allege that the bombardment had a collective impact of shock, anxiety and panic with lasting effects. 34. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to free movement and residence, the protective scope of which encompasses the right not to be displaced. In this regard, they allege that the situation of vulnerability experienced by individuals suffering the phenomenon of internal forced displacement is complex and that given the internal conflict in Colombia, the interpretation of Article 22 of the American Convention must be made by reference to Article 29, in light of the UN Guiding Principles of Internally Displaced Persons and the rules on displacement contained in Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 35. The petitioners consider that “Operation Genesis” represented: (i) the absolute curtailing of the communties’ members right to free movement between February 24 and 27, 1997; (ii) the massive forced displacement caused by the State through the action of militaries and the paramilitary campaign, towards Turbo; and (iii) the lack of State measures to ensure the comprehensive return of the communities to their lands. From all the foregoing, they consider that the State has violated Article 22 of the American Convention, to the prejudice of the communities associated in CAVIDA and the women head of household living in Turbo. 36. They allege that forced displacement involves the violation of various human rights, in terms of its context and the vulnerable situation of its victims. They indicate that the displaced persons abandoned their lands and animals, were faced with unemployment, malnutrition, illiteracy, the mortality rate due to preventable diseases or the harsh conditions facing them, making their natural habit 11 12 Petitioners’ allegations on the merits received on March 10, 2008, para. 220. In support of their argument the petitioners cite: I/A Court H.R. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., Judgment of September 26, 2006, para. 99. Petitioners’ allegations on the merits received on March 10, 2008, para. 233.