77 outboard motors were destroyed and an electric generator was burnt. Similarly, in Bocas del Limón, the food store of the Women's Committee and two homes were burnt; and community property was looted; and in Puente América, 32 homes were burnt. 348. During the period of displacement until their return to their lands, the displaced persons did not enjoy access to, and use of, personal and community property, lands and natural resources found there. For its part, their right to property was also affected due to the neglect and deterioration of their lands and both their moveable and immoveable, community and individual property. Similarly, the forced displacement also disadvantaged them in the possibility for work, which, in turn, caused them loss of earnings. The displaced persons found their right to property affected whenever during the time of the displacement they could not access the right to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources on their traditional lands - such as wood - among other resources traditionally used by members of the Cacarica communities. 349. In this regard, the Commission welcomes the granting of collective title to the lands to the Superior Community Council of Cacarica Black Communities, during the period of displacement, in the formal ceremony in the Turbo Stadium, on December 15, 1999. It also welcomes the help for their return offered by the State and made use of by the displaced when in March 2001, they completed their return to the collective lands. However, throughout the precautionary measures proceedings MC 70/99 - which remain in force up until the date of approval of the present report - the Commission received information on the lack of security in the area, which prevented them from fully exercising their right to property over their lands, resources and goods. 350. The Commission also recalls that the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has recommended that displaced persons have the right to return freely to their place of origin in conditions of security, and that the State Parties are obliged to guarantee that the return 371 of these displaced persons is voluntary. CERD has also established that "the displaced persons have the right, after returning to the place of origin, to have their property of which they were deprived during 372 the conflict restored to them, and to be duly compensated for the property that could not be returned. 351. Based on Article 1.1 of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that members of tribal peoples require various special measures to guarantee the full exercise of their rights, in particular with respect to the enjoyment of their rights to property, in order to guarantee their physical 373 and cultural survival. 352. Therefore, the State must guarantee this special protection. In the present case, the Commission also observes that the State has still not yet established security measures allowing the communities which have returned to fully exercise their right to property over their collective territories, over their goods, and resources found there. 353. In view of the exposition above, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to free movement and residence due to the forced displacement in relation to the violation of the right to private property, to the prejudice of members of the Cacarica Afro-descendant 371 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). General Recommendation No. XXII point 2.a and b. At: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/fed5109c180658d58025651e004e3744?Opendocument. 372 It has also pointed out that "[a]ll commitments or statements relating to such property made under duress are null and void." UN CERD, General Recommendation No. XXII, point 2.a, b., and c. At: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/fed5109c180658d58025651e004e3744?Opendocument. 373 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paras. 148-149, and 151; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras.118-121, and 131, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 124, 131, 135-137 and 154, and Case Saramaka v. Surinam, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 85.