84 Finally, the lack of differentiated care for the displaced due to their more vulnerable condition also constitutes a failure in the international obligations assumed by the State. 379. It is appropriate to reemphasize that the group of victims in the present case is made up of 446 displaced Afro-descendant victims of the armed conflict, of whom 117 are children, 195 are women and one group are women head of household. In this sense, the notion of intersectionality applies to this group of victims, in view of the fact they suffer from many kinds of discrimination from a combination of causes, among which are: their displaced status, their gender, ethnicity and status as children. 380. With regard to the women head of household, UNIFEM confirms that the change in roles and responsibilities caused by the displacement are inextricably linked to the need to guarantee the basic 409 necessities of the families and to the opportunities there are to achieve it. The Commission has stressed that forced by the circumstances, the displaced women have had to assume responsibility for the economic welfare of their families, to learn to acknowledge and solve their own problems in the world at large. They must turn to the various State and private agencies to arrange the humanitarian assistance set out in the legislation referring to internal forced displacement, to participate in various organizations to claim their rights and to manage different and complex spatial and cultural references in 410 comparison to those from their place of origin. 381. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of its obligation to guarantee and respect the rights without any discrimination on grounds of race or color and the right to equal protection before the law, by reason of the breaches caused by "Operation Genesis", the paramilitary raids, and the subsequent forced displacement suffered by the Afrodescendant communities of Cacarica associated in CAVIDA, and by the women head of household living in Turbo, in conformity with Article 22 in relation to Articles 1.1 and 24 of the American Convention. 382. From a combined reading of the context, background and events in the present case, the Commission reiterates the existence of a systematic pattern of these types of operations in the region at the time relevant to the events. In this respect, it is appropriate to stress that the forced movement of a population is characterized as a crime against humanity in Article 7.1.d of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC), whenever it is committed as part of a widespread or systematic practice against members of a civilian population and with knowledge of this said attack. Its Article 7.2.d defines that: "'[d]eportation or forcible transfer of population' means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without 411 grounds permitted under international law". For its part, the ICCFY has considered the forcible transfer of persons a crime against humanity under the criminal conduct "other inhuman acts" set out in Article 5.1 of its Statute. This Tribunal has defined deportation or forcible transfer of civilians as "the forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they 412 are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law". 383. Finally, as recognized by the Constitutional Court, displacement in Colombia represents a massive, prolonged and systematic violation. Similarly, the Commission reiterates (see supra IV C.3) the 409 Annex 105. IACHR. Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 67, October 18, 2006, para. 76. Cites: UN Fund for the Development of Women, Report on the Situation of Women in Colombia, September 2005, p. 22 and Colombian Women in Search of Peace: Close Analysis of their Initiatives and Proposals, 2004, pp. 23-24. At: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/ColombiaMujeres06eng/TOC.htm. 410 Annex 105. IACHR. Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 67, October 18, 2006, para. 76. At: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/ColombiaMujeres06eng/TOC.htm. 411 Rome Statute of the ICC, approved on July 17, 1998, by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/9. 412 Annex 106. ICTY. Judgment of the First Instance Chamber, Blaskic Case, March 3, 2000, para. 234. At: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/blaskic/tjug/en/bla-tj000303e.pdf. “Traditionally, the distinction between forcible transfer and deportation is that the first one consists of forced displacements of individuals within state borders, with the second one consists of forced displacement beyond internationally recognised state borders”. Annex 107. ICTY, Judgment of the First Instance Chamber, Case of Blagojevic and Jokic, of January 17, 2005, para. 595. At: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/blagojevic_jokic/tjug/en/bla-050117e.pdf.