107 facts, stated that “[the paramilitary] did not care whether they were children or babies, they took them away just for asking about their relative […].”225 161. After the Mapiripán Massacre, many families left the town and most have not returned. As explained in the respective chapter, the boys and girls, when they were displaced –specifically Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras and the Valencia Sanmiguel siblings, that is, Nadia Mariana Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber–, suffered conditions such as separation from their families, leaving behind their belongings and their homes, rejection, hunger and cold. For example, then minor Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo was threatened by the paramilitary after the massacre (supra para. 96.141). Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, in turn, who was 7 years old at the time of the facts, stated that he has felt rejected “because when he was in Bogotá people looked at him […] strangely because he was a displaced person.”226 Also, some of the displaced boys and girls had to live in “houses” made out of tin and plastic, and were in charge of their younger siblings, because their mothers had to find jobs to ensure family sustenance. In this regard, Johanna Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, 8 years old at the time of the facts, stated: We went hungry and my mother had to work to get food. I had to start taking care of my brothers since I was eight. I have a brother with special needs and I had to bottlefeed him and clean him. I also had to cook […].227 162. The obligation of the State to respect the right to life of every person under its jurisdiction takes on special aspects in the case of children, and it becomes an obligation to “prevent situations that might lead, by action or omission, to breach it.”228 In the sub judice case, the massacre and its consequences created a climate of constant tension and violence that affected the right of the boys and girls of Mapiripán to a decent life. Therefore, the Court deems that the State did not create the conditions and did not take the necessary steps for the boys and girls of the instant case to have and develop a decent life, but rather exposed them to a climate of violence and insecurity. 163. As a consequence of the lack of protection of the boys and girls by the State, before, during and after the massacre, the Court finds that the State violated Article 19 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 1(1) of that convention, to the detriment of Hugo Fernando and Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo Giraldo, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, and the Valencia Sanmiguel siblings, that is, Nadia Mariana, Yinda Adriana, Johanna Marina, Roland Andrés and Ronald Mayiber. The State also breached Article 19 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 22(1), 4(1) and 1(1) of that Convention, to the detriment of the boys and girls displaced from Mapiripán, of whom the following have been 225 See sworn statement rendered by witness Gustavo Caicedo Contreras on February 16, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4566). 226 See sworn statement rendered by witness Gustavo Caicedo Contreras on February 16, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4567). 227 See sworn statement rendered by witness Johanna Marina Valencia Sanmiguel on February 16, 2005 (file with statements rendered before or authenticated by a notary public, page 4577). 228 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, paras. 124 and 171, and Case of Bulacio, supra note 193, para. 138.