55 190. Consequently, because they were not identified with precision at the appropriate procedural opportunity, the Court cannot consider human rights defenders to be alleged victims in the instant case. 191. Based on the above, this Court finds that it is not incumbent on it to rule on the alleged violation of Articles 5, 13, and 16 of the Convention to the detriment of the human rights defenders, since they are not alleged victims in this case. XII ARTICLE 13 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION)138 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 192. The representatives alleged that the State “did not respect or guarantee Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s right to freedom of thought and expression, even though it had the legal obligation and duty to do so. To the contrary, in a context of democracy, it obstructed and prevented him from continuing to denounce the acts that were being perpetrated by paramilitary groups in connivance with and supported by the Army.” The representatives considered that the violation of Article 13 of the Convention was constituted by the alleged stigmatization of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo as an “enemy of the Armed Forces” by the Governor of Antioquia at the time, as well as by the criminal complaint filed against him by members of the Army for the offense of slander. According to the representatives, these State actions were intended to harass and intimidate Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, owing to his denunciations as a human rights defender. According to the representatives, “all the actions taken by the State authorities were designed to prevent him from continuing to denounce what was happening in the region of Ituango.” 193. The Commission did not allege the violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 194. The State indicated that “there is no evidence to prove the affirmation that State authorities declared that Jesús María Valle Jaramillo was an enemy of the Armed Forces.” It also stated that protection of the right to honor and reputation is guaranteed in the Colombian Constitution and that, “in Colombia, a criminal action for the offense of slander or libel can be filed against anyone by any citizen who considers that his moral integrity has been violated.” Therefore, the State was obliged “to receive the complaint made against Jesús María Valle Jaramillo for the presumed offense of slander or libel and open a preliminary investigation to decide whether or not this had been committed, and whether the accused had any participation in it, or whether the action was admissible.” Despite the above, the State requested that “should [the Court] find that the State has violated the right to freedom of expression, it declare that this violation was subsumed in the violation of the other rights that the State has acknowledged.” 195. As indicated above, the Court recalls that although the Commission did not allege the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the representatives are allowed to invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts described in the application (supra para. 174). To prove this alleged violation, the representatives relied on two facts indicated in the application: the complaint for slander that members of the 138 The relevant part of Article 13 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.