53 displacement and expulsion at the hands of the State’s repressive forces, and had to leave their ancestral communities and territories, seeking refuge in other places. They pointed out that the State made it impossible for these people to return by destroying their homes, property, harvests and livestock. Thus, they faced the loss of their ancestral lands, the lack of guarantees of nonrepetition of these events and fear. Finally, they alleged that the State has not provided suitable conditions for the return of all members of the community, for which reason the effects stemming from forced displacement persist over time and continue to this date. Consequently, they considered that Guatemala violated Article 22 of the Convention, as well as Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons they identified as victims and survivors of Chichupac village and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal who returned after March 9, 1987 and/or who remain in a situation of displacement. 170. In their final arguments, the representatives argued that many families continue to suffer displacement from their lands and their culture. They also pointed out that, apart from the intense moral damage caused by the scorched earth policy and by the acts of genocide, the surviving victims have suffered irreparable cultural, social and collective harm due to the destruction of the social fabric of their communities. They argued that forced displacement has meant a drastic change in the life project of the families. Many were violently uprooted and forced to live in urban or semi-urban settings, after living their entire lives in the country’s rural areas, and went from being farmers to working as laborers or assistants, in factories and workshops or in other jobs. Many of them live in marginal areas of Guatemala City, in the urban area of Rabinal, in other departments of the country or even outside Guatemala. 171. The State indicated that its domestic legislation recognizes and guarantees the right to reside and remain in the national territory, as well as the right to freedom of movement. It also objected to the Court examining these facts, since they would have occurred before the date on which the Court had jurisdiction. B. Considerations of the Court 172. Article 22(1) of the Convention recognizes the right of movement and residence. 184 The Court has established in other cases that this article also protects the right not to be forcibly displaced within a State Party, 185 and that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 186 are particularly relevant in determining their content and scope. 187 They define “internally displaced persons [as] persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of 184 Article 22(1) of the Convention establishes: “Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.” 185 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 207, and Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, para. 219. 186 Cf. Commission on Human Rights, United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 of February 11, 1998, p. 5. Annex. Introduction: scope and purpose. No. 2. Available at: http://www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/documentos/html/informes/onu/resdi/E-CN-4-1998-53-ADD-2.html. These principles have been recognized by the international community. See also: United Nations, General Assembly, Protection and assistance for the internally displaced, A/RES/64/162, of March 17, 2010, p.1. Available at: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d8265; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec (2006) to member states on internally displaced persons, April 5, 2006. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=987573&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogge d=FFAC75; African Union, Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), October 23, 2009, article 1, K). Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ae9bede9.html; Human Rights Council, Report submitted by the representative of the Secretary General on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin. A/HRC/13/21/Add.3, p. 4. II.4. Available at: http://www.acnur.es/PDF/8151_20120416132838.pdf. 187 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment 15 June 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 111, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 173.