72 Ortega was taking part in the initial organization of the women of her community, as revealed by specific declarations and expert opinions; iii) the rape had an intimidating effect, “obviously, [Mrs.] Fernández Ortega’s rape impeded her participation in the organization, as well as that of other women, and this was due to the impunity in the case and to the increase in harassment and threats against the victim, her family, and those who have accompanied her process of seeking justice,” and iv) the rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega forms part of the context of violence suffered by the grass-roots indigenous organizations of Guerrero, such as OPIM. 217. In summary, the State alleged that the Court is unable to examine the violation of the right to freedom of association in this case, because “the petitioners may not invoke facts that are distinct from those contained in the Commission’s application” and that brief “never mentions a policy of harassment against OPIM or other organizations for the defense of human rights in Guerrero. The situation of OPIM […] is not part of the litis”; in addition, “neither the alleged actions against OPIM, nor the alleged violation of Article 16(1) were indicated at any time by the petitioners throughout the processing of the case before the Commission,” so that “[a]t this stage of the proceedings, to admit the claim that the State violated Article 16 of the Convention to the detriment of members of that organization would amount to depriving the State of its right to be heard in a fair trial.” Despite the foregoing, the State, also indicated that it had not violated Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s right to freedom of association because it had complied with all the positive and negative obligations deriving from it. Among other measures, the State had adopted precautionary and provisional measures with regard to the individuals linked directly and indirectly to the case, initiated several preliminary inquiries, and held working meetings with the representatives. Additionally, the right to freedom of association is extensively guaranteed by law and a petition for amparo [protection of constitutional rights] can be filed to achieve the restitution of the right if any possible act of an authority unduly limits it. Finally, the State referred to other initiatives to protect and promote human rights defenders, such as the mechanisms for dialogue with their organizations. Based on the abovementioned, Mexico asked the Court to withhold itself from examining the alleged violation of freedom of association or to “declare that the violation [of this] right has not been proven.” 218. The Court observes that, in its application, the Commission did not argue the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association; rather these allegations were only made by the representatives. This Court has established that the alleged victims, their next of kin, or their representatives may invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts that the latter has presented.234 219. In its application, the Commission described facts relating to the rape perpetrated against Mrs. Fernández Ortega and the failure to investigate it, and indicated that the rape took place in a context of the violation of the human rights of indigenous people in the region of Guerrero attributed to soldiers present in the area. However, the alleged participation of Mrs. Fernández Ortega in OPIM, her involvement in the defense of the women of her community, and the prevention of or decrease in the participation of women in OPIM as a result of Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s rape do not appear in the application. Since the representatives’ arguments concerning the alleged violation of Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s right to freedom of association are linked to these facts that do not appear in the 234 Cf. The “Five Pensioners” v. Perú, supra note 140, para. 153; Case of Ríos et al., supra note 46, para. 42, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 46, para. 32.