necessarily placed them in a situation of aggravated risk. Further on in this report the IACHR will delve deeper into these statements in light of Article 11 of the Convention. On this point, with respect to attribution of responsibility for the repeated acts of violence, threats, and harassment, the Commission cannot but note the extreme seriousness of senior officials making statements linking members of CAJAR to the guerrillas in the context of the armed conflict. In the Colombian context, this turned them into targets for law enforcement and paramilitary groups. 296. Secondly, the Commission points out that the intelligence work done by the DAS, and referred to in the previous section, helped put the CAJAR members at greater risk. The intelligence actions engaged in by the State in light of Article 11 of the American Convention are examined below. Based on that analysis, the Commission underscores that the DAS’s intelligence activities had illegitimate ends that contravened the Convention and included delivery of information collected about CAJAR members to paramilitary groups. This grave situation does not just constitute a serious failure by the State to comply with its duty to protect; these actions also openly ran contrary to such duty, with the corresponding implications for attribution of responsibility to the State for the acts of violence, threat, and harassment against CAJAR. 297. In light of the foregoing, the material protection measures implemented—when evaluated on par with the lack of elucidation about and total impunity for the acts reported, the arbitrary intelligence efforts, and the surveillance by State authorities, the intentions of which placed the alleged victims at serious risk, as well as stigmatizing statements made by senior authorities to that same effect—were clearly insufficient. The Commission therefore concludes that the State as a whole failed to fulfill its duty to protect, in keeping with its international obligations, as well as its duty to respect [rights] by making itself party, through specific actions taken by its authorities, to the risk faced by CAJAR, and by proving itself to be tolerant and acquiescent with respect to the acts targeting CAJAR members. 298. The IACHR thus concludes that when it comes to all of the acts of violence, threats, and harassment, that, by their very nature, are tied to the human rights defense activities carried out by CAJAR, the Colombian State is responsible for violation of the rights to personal integrity, freedom of expression, and freedom of association established in Articles 5(1), 13(1), and 16(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 16 CAJAR members identified in the finding of facts section. C. Rights to honor and dignity, and private and family life, freedom of expression, and freedom of association (Articles 11(2),539 13, and 16 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) 1. Intelligence activities by the State 299. With respect to Article 11(2) of the American Convention, the Commission and the Court have indicated that while this provision is entitled “Protection of Honor and Dignity,” its content includes protection of private life.540 300. The European Court of Human Rights has heard several cases related to State intelligence activities.541 In those matters, there were allegations of, inter alia, searches of homes and interception of electronic communications and data transfers. The European Court determined that such allegations must be analyzed Article 11(2) of the American Convention: No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 539 IACHR, Report No. 4/16, Case 12.690, Merits, V.R.P and V.P.C, Nicaragua, April 13, 2016, paragraph 82. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, paragraph 193; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009 Series C No. 193, paragraph 55. 541 ECHR, Iordachi and Others v. Moldova. Judgment of 2 October 2009; Liberty and Others v. United Kingdom. Judgment of 1 July 2008; Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria. Judgment of 22 May 2008, paragraph 49; and Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, Judgment of 6 June 2016. 540 56