II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 6. The petitioner alleged that on May 25, 2000, journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima was abducted outside the National Model Prison (Cárcel Nacional Modelo) in the city of Bogotá. It maintains that during her kidnapping, which lasted approximately 16 hours, the alleged victim was severely abused and tortured by her captors, who subjected her to various forms of physical, sexual, and psychological violence and told her on several occasions that the kidnapping was due to her journalistic work. It denounced that, at the time of the events, the journalist was working for the newspaper El Espectador as chief editor of prison news and was covering a massacre that had taken place on April 27, 2000 at La Modelo. 7. La the petitioner alleges that the State failed in its duty to guarantee the rights to humane treatment, freedom, and privacy, since it did not take protective measures on behalf of Jineth Bedoya Lima, even though it was aware of the risks she faced because of the work she was doing. It indicated that Jineth Bedoya Lima informed the authorities of the threats she had received; however, the State did not take effective protection measures. The petitioner alleged that the State's failure to protect Jineth Bedoya Lima also constitutes a violation of her right to freedom of expression in both its individual and collective dimensions. It also argued that, because of the threats against her and the lack of government protection, she had to leave the country in 1998, which was a violation of her right of free movement and residence. 8. The petitioner raised various allegations, arguing that the Colombian State violated the alleged victim's rights to judicial guarantees and protection by failing to conduct a diligent and effective investigation into these acts, consistent with applicable international standards. The petitioner maintained that “until 2011 there was no impetus to the investigation” and that it was only in 2011, with the prompting and intervention of the alleged victim and her legal representatives, that the investigation was reactivated; therefore, the State is responsible for an undue delay in the investigation. In addition, it argued that the State omitted to conduct and assess evidentiary proceedings in a timely manner, making it impossible in several instances to include evidence in the criminal file that could have been decisive. It stated that, on the contrary, there was stalling and discontinuity in the lines of investigation; duality in the investigations of gender-based violence; the transfer of the investigative activity to the victim; a lack of investigative memory and coherence; ineffective investigative activities; and the delayed examination of relevant evidence. It also argued that from the outset there was evidence of involvement of State agents in the alleged acts, and yet this line of investigation has not been a major part of the judicial proceedings in the case. Specifically, it said that the facts involving State agents should have been considered as possible torture in accordance with the requirements derived from Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition, the petitioner asserted that the investigation was not conducted properly, that the victim was forced to provide multiple statements in court, and that the evidence and the establishment of lines of investigation were discriminatory, in breach of the enhanced obligation to investigate acts of sexual violence contained in Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 9. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner alleged that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 22, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. It also alleged noncompliance with the obligations established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT and Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 10. The petitioner maintains that this case is framed within the context of the internal armed conflict in Colombia, which has had a differentiated and disproportionate impact on both journalists and women. 11. Finally, the petitioner asked the Commission to find that the State violated the right to humane treatment, in relation to Article 1.1 of the ACHR, to the detriment of Luz Nelly Lima Gutiérrez, Jineth Bedoya's mother. In this regard, it alleged that she “has been suffering and fearful of the threats to her daughter since 1998, aggravated by the ongoing impunity in the case, and that in 1999 she was injured in an attack directed against the alleged victim, and had to be hospitalized for several days.” 2