B. The State 12. The State indicated that it deeply regrets the events of May 25, 2000, when journalist Jineth Bedoya was the victim of acts constituting kidnapping, torture, and sexual violence, and expressed its appreciation for the journalistic work of Jineth Bedoya. It also acknowledged that “There was a context of violence against journalists at the time of the events involved in this case,” and asked the IACHR for legislative and public policy measures aimed at “respecting and guaranteeing the practice of journalism and access to justice for crimes of sexual violence against women within and outside the context of the armed conflict.” 13. The State alleged that government authorities have taken various criminal and disciplinary actions, as well as protection and reparation measures in order to safeguard the rights of the alleged victim in the present case. As to the protective measures, the State acknowledged that it was aware of the journalist’s risk prior to her abduction. It affirmed that in 1999 the State assessed the risk at a medium level; “however, it is not certain whether the journalist accepted the provisional security detail offered by the DAS.” It also stated that the Ministry of Defense was indeed aware of the threats received by Jineth Bedoya the day before her kidnapping and that “it dealt with the situation described by journalists through the National Police, taking security measures to prevent the risk from becoming a reality.” It added that she was assigned a security detail in March 2014, consisting of police officers, an armored vehicle, a conventional vehicle, a communication device, and a bulletproof vest. 14. With regard to the criminal investigation into the threats, the State maintained that it opened three criminal investigations, which were closed for good cause after the end of the inquiry stage. However, the State reported that “a Legal Technical Committee of the Office of the Prosecutor General is considering the possibility of ordering the reopening of these investigations, in order to continue gathering evidence to clarify the facts reported by the journalist.” 15. Regarding the investigations related to the events that occurred on May 25, 2000, the State argued that the authorities have acted objectively and comprehensively following established constitutional and legal procedures and that significant progress has been made as a result of that work. It stated that once it learned of the journalist’s kidnapping, the authorities immediately took action to determine her whereabouts and initiated the necessary procedures to identify those responsible. It maintained that despite the difficulties encountered in the investigation of these facts, the authorities have assumed their duty with all seriousness, impartiality, and speed, which has enabled the following advances: 1) the conviction of two of the perpetrators, 2) the declaration of the crimes against Jineth Bedoya Lima as crimes against humanity, in accordance with the international instruments ratified by Colombia, 3) the identification of the motives for the crimes, which concluded that the intent was to intimidate the journalist and restrict the exercise of her activity, and 4) progress in establishing the facts. The State indicated that the Public Ministry has been actively involved in the criminal case since its inception and that since January 2011, when Jineth Bedoya Lima became a civil party to the investigation, the alleged victim has been fully involved in the case. In addition, the State maintained that the investigation followed the standards established for dealing with victims of sexual violence, and that at no time did the authorities engage in “actions that could have re-victimized and/or discriminated against the journalist,” nor did they make stereotypical assessments in the investigation. The State contended that at the beginning of the investigation there was not enough evidence to pursue a line of investigation related to the involvement of State agents in the facts of the instant case, but that new elements have recently been added to the case in that regard and the relevant evidence has been requested in order to resolve that theory. 16. With regard to comprehensive reparation measures, the State indicated that the Unit for Comprehensive Victim Support and Reparation granted the alleged victim a sum equivalent to 40 monthly minimum salaries as a compensation measure. It also issued a decree declaring May 25 the “National Day for the Dignity of Women Victims of Sexual Violence in the Armed Conflict” and gave Jineth Bedoya Lima a “letter to restore dignity” [“carta de dignificación”] in light of the events of May 25, 2000. 17. Based on the foregoing, the State maintained that it did not violate the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, nor did it violate Article 7.b of 3