8 32. The petitioners contend that the Mexican State has violated Article 4 of the Convention to the detriment of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, because it did not create the necessary conditions to effectively ensure the enjoyment of this right and once she was dead, the State is responsible for several failures, irregularities and acts of negligence that prevented the true causes of her death and punishment of those responsible for it to be determined. The petitioners further submit that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention, in light of the pain and suffering inflicted upon her family members as a result of the failure to effectively investigate and because it did not adequately investigate the threats that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had been subjected to. The petitioners assert that as a result of the failure to adequately investigate, the family has been compelled to shoulder the burden of proof and introduce expert evidence to disprove the groundless conjecture and speculation positing that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had committed suicide. 33. B. The State The State recognizes that the case has been highly sensitive for Mexican society and the international community and reiterates its respect and recognition of the efforts of Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido as a human rights defender. It notes that as soon as it learned of her death, it informed the IACHR of its commitment to investigate this incident. It asserts that it has participated in all of the hearings on the case and complied with reporting on progress made in the investigations and highlights how it was receptive to allowing experts appointed by the IACHR to become involved, which according to the State, shows transparency and that the investigation was conducted with strict adherence to the law. 34. The State claims that once the assaults made against Mrs. Digna Ochoa came to its attention, it provided adequate protection to Mrs. Ochoa and the offices of the PRODH Center, while the protection measures issued by the bodies of the Inter-American system were in force and, during that time, Mrs. Digna Ochoa accepted this protection. It contends that it adequately investigated the alleged threats leveled at her; however, an incident, such as the alleged kidnapping of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, that was reported to the Office of the Public Prosecutor almost one month after it occurred, is difficult to investigate. Additionally, with regard to Mrs. Digna Ochoa being held captive at her residence, the State notes that followed several investigation leads and undertook to obtain expert analysis in order to determine what happened. As to the threats on the PRODH Center, the State claims that based on the opinions from forensic experts, it was determined that, in light of an absence of any signs of forced entry into the premises, it was likely that the alleged culprits were persons close to the PRODH, who were aware of their comings and goings and schedules. 35. 36. Following the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, the State notes that in order to investigate her death, a special prosecutorial unit was created, which exhausted all hypothesis of investigation, particularly, one linked to the alleged involvement of the military, another linked to the State of Guerrero, another to the social, family and personal circumstances of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and the possibility that she may have put an end to her own life. It specifically notes that, with regard to the alleged existence of a mastermind behind a murder, this story appeared in newspaper articles based on the testimony of an “anonymous” witness and that, additionally, at the time when said articles were released, the persons who were presumably sent by the alleged mastermind to take the life of Mrs. Digna Ochoa had also been murdered. It stated that when Mr. Jesús Ochoa appeared and also filed a complaint against the same alleged mastermind, he did so based on “hearsay testimony” and, after the office of the prosecuting attorney undertook several inquiries with the State of Guerrero, it established that there was no apparent