70 329 has been established by the Conseil d’Etat in its decisions. This is in contrast to the State's obligation to lend assistance in humanitarian crises. The Commission understands that these State obligations are of a different nature and origin; therefore in the present case, the fact that humanitarian assistance has been provided specifically for the displaced is independent of the State's obligation to make reparations to the victims of displacement. 311. In view of the above, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for a violation of Article 22 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 5 and 1.1, to the prejudice of the members of the Cacarica displaced communities associated with CAVIDA and the women head of household living in Turbo. 312. Finally, it is appropriate for the Commission to examine the petitioners' allegations with reference to arguments that were not considered in Admissibility Report No. 86/06. In actual fact, they have alleged the State's responsibility for the violation of the right to a dignified life and to the protection of the displaced people's honor and dignity and consider that this is set forth in Articles 4 and 11 of the American Convention. The State, for its part, maintains that the case only refers to the events characterized in Admissibility Report No. 86/06 and that the allegations of violations of Articles 11 and 4 of the American Convention to the prejudice of the displaced persons cannot form the basis of the case on the merits. 313. In this respect, it should be noted that the allegations of law presented at the merits stage are based on events known to the State since the admissibility stage; thus the State has had adequate opportunity to contest them. The Commission has taken these facts into account and considers that the alleged breach of the right to a dignified life and to the protection of honor and dignity has already been examined in relation to the violation of the personal integrity of the displaced persons. The Forced Displacement and the Arbitrary and Abusive Interference with Family Life 314. From the findings of fact it is apparent that the violence of the armed operations and the displacement had an affect on the family life of the displaced communities of the Cacarica basin. Families were forced to abandon their homes, some suffered from separation or being split up and they were prevented from living the type of family life that they had developed in accordance with their customs. 315. Article 17.1 of the American Convention establishes that: "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." For its part, Article 11.2 of the same instrument provides that: "[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation." 316. The Inter-American Court has established that the right to the family may be seen as a complement to the positive obligation to protect the family enshrined in Article 17.1, understood as a 330 fundamental aspect of society and to the State's negative obligation, referring to the duty to abstain 331 from causing arbitrary or abusive interference with the family surroundings established in Article 11.2 of 329 Cf. IAnnex 96. ACHR Principal Guidelines for a Comprehensive Reparations Policy, OEA/Ser/L/V/II.131 Doc. 1, February 19, 2008, para. 6. At: http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/Lineamientos%20Reparacion%20Administrativa%2014%20mar%202008%20ENG%20final.pdf. 330 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 66. 331 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 55; and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 113.