59 192. Similarly, the psychologist Gómez Dupuis explained that “daily life, celebrations and rituals revolved around the land, its production cycles and the community’s social organization” and that “displacement caused the rupture of support networks, the rupture with the land and the ancestral culture.” She emphasized that “cultural practices were seriously damaged by the exclusion and stigmatization of the Maya Achí population.” 193. The Court considers that the testimony given by Napoleón García de Paz at the public hearing is consistent with these expert reports. Mr. García told the Court that after surviving the events of November 26, 1982, in which eight persons were victims of forced disappearance, he left his community to take refuge in the mountains. There, together with his wife and children, he also survived the events of March 2, 1983, in which eight people were executed (supra paras. 110 to 112). He explained that he subsequently went to Guatemala City and currently lives in Rabinal, without having returned to his village. Regarding the events he experienced and the displacement, he said that he feels “pain […] because one is a native of the village of Xeabaj […], I have this feeling because things are no longer the same in the village, no people, no family - all my family, my brothers were killed, I’m the only one left […], it’s very painful for the Maya race that it is finished; those in the Army want to eliminate us, because they say we’re Indians, the say we’re worthless because we can’t speak Spanish. That’s why I have this feeling that our beloved communities passed away […]. I haven’t even gone to my village because […] I’m afraid, any little rocket over there makes me think that the Army is coming here, but no. Why? Because your mind is traumatized.” 194. The Court likewise notes that forced displacement also affected the religious life of the members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities. According to psychologist Gómez Dupuis, “[d]uring those years the people stopped performing their devotions to the earth, rain, harvest, health, or for the dead and their communion with their ancestors. With the passage of time, people in the community have gradually recovered their cultural practices, and several community elders who managed to survive the massacre preserve the ancestral knowledge. However, several families converted to new religions such as the charismatic and evangelical churches. […] Cultural practices have also been lost among those who were permanently uprooted to other municipalities, particularly the young people who grew up away from their ancestral lands and embraced new identities,” “far removed from their family, their traditions, their traditional dress and their language.” 202 195. The expert witness Salvadó Cardoza also referred to “the difficulty of carrying out certain cultural practices in the new environment,” and to the “apparently sudden changes in traditional spirituality, including the appearance of new evangelical churches looking for followers.” He also referred to the impact on religious practices, since people could no longer go to the traditional sacred sites of Rabinal, which meant “a very hard blow to the community and caused the rupture of community life.” 203 196. The Court notes that this situation is consistent with what happened in the cases of the Río Negro Massacres and Plan de Sánchez Massacre, whose victims were mostly members of the Maya Achí people, including children, women and men who lived in the villages and communities of the municipality of Rabinal, Department of Baja Verapaz, who were forced to leave their communities and take refuge in the mountains, as well as in other places, due to the persecution, violence and destruction of their homes and communities in the context of Guatemala’s internal armed conflict. In these cases, the Court also found that the persons who suffered forced displacement to areas far from their community lost the opportunity to participate in the Cf. Report on the damage to mental health (moral) prepared by the psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis on May 5, 2010, and presented before the Inter-American Commission(evidence file, folios 1313 to 1315, 1319 and 1324). 203 Cf. Written report of the expert witness Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza presented during the public hearing held on April 28, 2016 (evidence file, folios 11676 to 11677), and expert opinion of Luis Raúl Francisco Salvadó Cardoza presented before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing on April 28, 2016. 202