him to leave the country. Furthermore, they argued that, if Mr. Palacio Urrutia had not returned because Mr. Correa was President, he would have done so when he left office, however, he decided not to do so. The Commission did not make specific arguments on the matter. D.2. Considerations of the Court 145. The Court has indicated that “the right of movement and residence, protected in Article 22(1) of the American Convention, is an indispensable condition for the free development of the person, and considers, inter alia, the right of those legally within a State to move freely in it, as well as to choose their place of residence. 207 This right can be violated formally or by de facto restrictions when the State has not established the conditions or provided the means to exercise it. 208 Said de facto violations may occur when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the necessary guarantees to be able to move freely and reside in the territory in question. The Court also indicated that failure to conduct an effective investigation into violent incidents may promote or perpetuate forced displacement or exile.” 209 146. Similarly, the Court has indicated that the granting of asylum in another country reveals the high level of credibility that the authorities of the State granting asylum accorded to the claims made by the victims. However, such acknowledgment alone is not sufficient to affirm that the violation of the right of residence was configured in the case. This is one more indication to take into account in the set of particular circumstances of the case. 210 Furthermore, the Court has reaffirmed that the State of origin’s obligation of guarantee to protect the rights of displaced persons entails not only the duty to adopt preventive measures but also to provide the necessary conditions to facilitate a voluntary, dignified and safe return to their usual place of residence or their voluntary resettlement in another part of the country. As such, their full participation in the planning and management of their return or reintegration must be guaranteed. 211 147. This Court has also established that, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, the practice of professional journalism cannot be differentiated from freedom of expression, for which the journalist must be free to exercise his profession without undue interference from the authorities. Similarly, the Court notes that the Principles on Freedom of Expression state that “the murder, kidnapping, intimidation of and/or threats to social communicators, as well as the material destruction of communications media violate the fundamental rights of individuals and severely restrict Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, par. 115, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, par. 272. 207 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 119 and 120, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, par. 272. 208 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra, par. 119 and 120, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. México. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, par. 274. 209 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, par. 161, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 310. 210 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, par. 149, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 190. 211 48