320. Additionally, the European Court has observed that intelligence actions have a serious impact on the activities of the group affected.583 In this case, different documents from state agencies and statements by officials involved in the intelligence activities confirm that these State-run activities targeting CAJAR members were aimed at hindering their work, and threatening and instilling fear in them. This was due to the fact that CAJAR was considered an organization that defended illegal groups. 321. The Commission underscores that said activities affected the organization’s regular work and necessarily had a chilling effect on the exercise of CAJAR members’ rights to freedom of expression and association. Indeed, DAS activities were not limited to the surveillance and monitoring already analyzed in the previous section; beyond this, the DAS had ties to paramilitary groups, which impacted the risk CAJAR members faced, as was also discussed above. 2. Statements by senior government authorities 322. The Commission has pointed out that accusing and stigmatizing a person may constitute a violation of that person’s right to honor and dignity and dramatically increases the risk that their rights to life and integrity will be affected.584 This is above all the case when these accusations and stigmatization come from public officials and in the context of armed conflicts, in which illegal groups may believe that acts of violence against persons subject to stigmatization enjoy the acquiescence of governments.585 323. Along the same lines, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders has stated that “the growing characterization of human rights defenders as “terrorists,” “enemies of the State,” or “political opponents” by State authorities and State-owned media is a particularly worrying trend, as it […] increase[s] their vulnerability.”586 324. The Inter-American Court’s case law has also established that stigmatizing acts can harm the stigmatized person’s right to honor and dignity. 325. In the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, the Inter-American Court confirmed that the son of a Senator of the Republic was the subject of public accusations by the then President of the Republic, who accused him of being, among other things “a human rights imposter and of using the protection of victims of human rights violations to request donations from abroad.” The Court found in this case that “the situation of stigmatization affecting the next of kin of Senator Cepeda Vargas exposed them to continued threats and harassment in their search to clarify the facts. These circumstances have been further exacerbated by the extended length of time that has elapsed without all the responsibilities for the facts having been clarified.”587 Likewise, in the case of Gomez Paquiyauri v. Peru, the Inter-American Court found that “it has been proven that the alleged victims were treated as ‘terrorists,’ subjecting them and their family to hatred, public contempt, persecution, and discrimination, for which reason there has been a violation of Article 11 of the American Convention (…).”588 326. For its part, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has provided that: ECHR, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, Judgment of 6 June 2016, paragraph 38. IACHR, Truth, Justice, and Reparation: Fourth Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.49/13, December 31, 2013, paragraph 775. 585 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 rev.1, 2006 paragraph 170. Along the same lines, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders has indicated that the continued stigmatization of defenders exposes them to heightened risks and produces a chilling effect on the public perception of them. See Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, A/HRC/25/55, 23 December 2013; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Azerbaijan, 20 February 2017, A/HRC/34/52/Add.3, paragraph 30. 586 Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, 30 December 2009, A/HRC/13/22, paragraph 27. 587 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paragraph 209. 588 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph182. 583 584 63