59 Mrs. García Depaz had no choice in the matter, as she was forced to work against her will and under threat. 255. The Commission therefore considers that the Guatemalan State is responsible for violation of Article 6(2) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Juana García Depaz. 2.5.3. Freedom of movement and residence (Article 22 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 256. The Inter-American Court has written that Article 22(1) of the Convention “protects the 342 right to not be forcefully displaced within a State Party to the Convention.” Here, the Court has held that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are particularly relevant in determining the content and scope of Article 22 of the American Convention.343 Those principles state that “[f]or the purposes of these Principles, internally displaced persons are 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 human rights […], and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”344 257. Thus, the Court has held that: […] given the complexity of the phenomenon of internal displacement and the wide range of human rights that are violated or put at risk, and considering the special vulnerability or defenselessness that is generally the lot of the displaced, their situation can be understood as de facto lack of protection. […] Under the American Convention, this situation requires that States take positive measures to reverse the effects of displaced persons’ weakness, vulnerability and 345 defenselessness, including with respect to the actions and practices of third parties. 258. As for the forced displacement of indigenous peoples driven from their community, the Court has held that this can make them particularly vulnerable because the destructive consequences for the ethnic and cultural fabric exposes indigenous peoples to the real risk of cultural or physical 346 extinction. It is imperative that States take specific measures of protection that take into account the 342 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par.188. 343 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par.111; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010, Series C No. 212, par.140; and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, par.173. 344 Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, February 11, 1998. United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 345 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, par.141. 346 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, par.177.