67 317 Court has considered that Article 22.1 of the Convention protects the right not to be forcibly displaced. The Inter-American Court has established that free movement is an indispensible condition for the free 318 development of the individual and has recognized that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No.27, establishes that the right to free movement and residence is comprised of, inter alia: a) the right of everyone lawfully with the territory of a State to move freely within that State and to choose his or her place of residence; and b) the right of an individual to enter his country and remain therein. The Court has established that the enjoyment of this right does not depend on any objective or 319 particular motive of the person wishing to travel or remain in a place. 293. The circumstances of the present case and the special and complex situation of risk to the human rights of displaced persons, include and go beyond the content of the protection due by the 320 States in the framework of Article 22 of the Convention. 294. The Commission has already determined that the forced displacement suffered by members of the Cacarica communities was caused both by "Operation Genesis" as well as paramilitary raids, and that these were coordinated operations (see supra IV C.2.). In effect, displacement originated in the danger generated by the State as well as the lack of prevention and absence of protection suffered by the Cacarica communities. the the the the 295. These persons remained displaced for four years, between February 1997 and March 2001. In 2001, the return and resettlement of the members of the Cacarica communities in “Esperanza en Dios” and “Nueva Vida” took place in three phases until March 2001, supported by the State and with the aid of the international community. As aid for the communities' return, the State provided "food for work" to three hundred families, supplied sanitation kits, plates and cooking utensils, fuel, boat repairs, tools and materials, among other things. In addition, the State provided health teams and medicines. 296. The Commission understands the enormous challenge facing the State of Colombia in confronting the grave situation of internal displacement and recognizes the efforts made in this direction. The Commission also values the humanitarian aid, the medical assistance and support lent by the State to the displaced people in their places of refuge. In addition, it appreciates that the State has supported the return of a group of displaced to "Nueva Vida” and “Esperanza en Dios"; that it was planned taking account of each family; and that a group of displaced persons have benefitted from the relief aid and the housing improvement project (see supra III.B). The Commission reiterates, however, that the State did not adopt preventive and protective measures before the imminent displacement. 297. Consequently, from the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, to the prejudice of the members of the displaced communities of Cacarica associated with CAVIDA and the women head of household living in Turbo. The Forced Displacement and the Right to Personal Integrity 317 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 207; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 188 and UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 859/1999: Colombia. April 15, 2002, para. 7.4. 318 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 168. Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 110, and Case of Ricardo Canese, Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115. 319 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 168. Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 110, and Case of Ricardo Canese, Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 115. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27, November 2, 1999, paras. 1, 4, 5 and 19. 320 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 186.