42 151. In conclusion of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the forced disappearance has been maintained since the recognition of the adjudicatory Jurisdiction of the Court effectuated on March 9, 1987. As a consequence, the Court considers that the State has not guaranteed to the members of the Chitay Rodríguez family their right of movement and residence for which it is responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of Encarnación, Pedro, Estermerio, Eliseo, and María Rosaura, all with the last name of Chitay Rodríguez. B. The impacts on the Chitay Rodriguez family and on the cultural life of the indigenous children. 152. Both the Commission as well as the representatives alleged that the Chitay Rodriguez family was disintegrated as a consequence of the constant threats and persecutions that they suffered before, during, and after the disappearance of Florencio Chitay. They coincided also in their manifestation that Estermerio Chitay witnessed, as a five-year-old, how his father was beaten and forcibly disappeared, which constituted a violation to the rights of the child. 153. Additionally, the representatives alleged the violation of the rights of the child to the detriment of Eliseo, Estermerio, and Maria Rosaura Chitay Rodrigez because “[t]he familial disintegration and the forced constitution of a single parent home [constituted specific violations] to the rights of the child, that […] when as a consequence of an act of the State signifies a full denial of the call to protect the family[,] because it presents obstacles to the possibility of comprehensive and healthy growth of the child and […] does not permit the permanence of a family foundation carried out by a man and a woman […].” Also, the representatives highlighted that the children of Florencio Chitay Nech were seen as forced to live in a culture that was not their own, which caused them the loss of their identity and cultural uproot. 154. For its part, the State recognized its responsibility for these facts and accepted the responsibility for the alleged violations regarding Articles 17 and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. * * * 155. To highlight first, the Court observes that the alleged fact on which the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of Article 19 of the Convention in regard to Estermerio Chitay is based upon the fact that on April 1, 1981, he, as a five-year-old, witnessed his father being beaten and forcibly disappeared. The Court will not give a ruling about such allegation, since the fact occurred before March 9, 1987, the date on which Guatemala recognized the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court. Regarding Articles 17 and 19 of the Convention regarding Pedro, Encarnacion, Eliseo, Estermerio and Maria Rosaura Chitay Rodriguez, this Tribunal notes that if the allegations of the Commission and the representatives are based on the threats, the families displacement, harassments, and the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech, acts that occurred prior to the Court’s jurisdiction, these facts determined that the family structure remain disintegrated until after this date, the reason for which this Tribunal affirms its jurisdiction in order to hear of the same and of its international juridical consequences. B.1 The disintegration of the Chitay Rodríguez family