71 214. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds that they may not exist any obstacles to the search for justice in this case and, thus, the State must continue adopting all necessary measures to protect the victims and other people connected to this case, and guarantee their safety, ensuring that they can exercise their rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection without restrictions. X ARTICLE 16 (FREEEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)233 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 215. In the written brief on pleadings and motions, the representatives asked the Court to declare that Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s right to freedom of association had been violated. They indicated, inter alia, that she became a member of the Independent Organization of the Mixtecos and Tlapanecos [Organización Independiente de los Pueblos Mixtecos y Tlapaneco] (hereinafter “OIPMT, organization that preceded OPIM”) in 2000, “because of the lack of justice with regard to the murder of her father […], and also to fight for better living conditions for the members of the indigenous communities in her region.” Owing to her participation in OIMPT and her work in defense of the rights of indigenous women, victims of violence in her community, Mrs. Fernández Ortega “was viewed by members of the Army as part of the ‘enemy’” and “[o]wing to her condition as a woman, she was regarded as an object and raped.” Furthermore, while investigating the case, the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office showed a tendency to “discredit and criminalize [Mrs. Fernández Ortega], her husband and her organization,” even linking her, together with her husband, “to criminal acts merely because they belonged to OIMPT.” They underscored that “the accusations against OIMPT occurred in the context of the criminalization of members of social organizations on the assumption that they were linked to armed insurgent movements or to activities connected to drug-trafficking.” The rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega “was intended to send a message to intimidate her [and also] the other members of OIMPT, to persuade them to cease their efforts to claim their rights and denounce military abuse, and as a warning of what could continue to happen.” Mrs. Fernández Ortega “was not only raped as a form of serious intimidation against her organization […] but also [given] her participation in the organization, she did not merit effective protection by the law.” 216. During the public hearing, the representatives reiterated that “one of the reasons Mrs. […] Fernández Ortega was raped was because it was an intimidation strategy owing to her membership in [said] organization.” Lastly, in their final arguments, they reiterated their request that the State be declared responsible for violating the right to freedom of association, even though they modified their arguments partially, affirming that: i) the rape took place at a time when OPIM had documented and denounced the rape of another Me´paa woman perpetrated by soldiers. Hence, “the rape of [Mrs.] Fernández Ortega is understood to be a consequence of the complaint by Valentina Rosendo Cantú, which evidently affected and disrupted the way in which [Mrs.] Fernández Ortega participated in her organization, as it cannot be ruled out that her involvement with OPIM was one of the reasons that she was attacked”; ii) at the time of the rape, Mrs. Fernández 233 Article 16 of the Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. 2. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.