remedy the facts alleged by the petitioners. It explained that that had translated into the imposition of criminal and administrative penalties on several public officials involved. 22. The State said that it had adopted a series of measures to recognize the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders, including Presidential Directive No. 07 of 1999, the Interior Ministry’s Program for Protection of Witnesses and Persons under Threat, and Constitutional Court Judgment T-1062/05. Colombia said that it “reiterates its recognition of the work done by human rights defenders, since both they and the organizations under which they are grouped are a key element for the consolidation of a democratic state.” The State also said that the Office of the Vice President of the Republic had made arrangements to address the requests of the petitioners in this case, particularly in relation to the matters concerning intelligence archives. 23. In relation to the alleged violation of the rights to life and humane treatment, the State said that there was no evidence that the measures adopted to protect the lives of CCAJAR members lacked effectiveness. It argued that, on the contrary, they were fit for protecting the lives and physical integrity of those individuals. It explained that in precautionary measures process PM-128-00, it had taken all the necessary steps to ensure the life and well-being of the beneficiaries. The State noted that the beneficiaries had not permitted a risk assessment to be carried out since 2009. It said that, despite that, security measures had continued to be implemented. 24. In addition, Colombia said that at no time had it created a situation of risk for the alleged victims. It said that it was not true that there was a causal link between the statements of certain officials and the threats received by the organization. 25. With respect to the incidents that occurred between 1990 and 2002, the State held that the complaints had been investigated by the competent authorities. It said that the investigations had been conducted in a meaningful way even if “they have not advanced past the inquiry stage.” It held that it could not be concluded that unreasonable time had been taken simply because time had passed without criminal convictions being imposed. It said that the investigations were dealing with complex facts. 26. As regards the incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2006, Colombia said that 7 criminal inquiries has been opened and 5 criminal judgments handed down on 11 former DAS officials. It mentioned that 2 others had entered guilty pleas and that another 17 former officials were still under investigation. It also reported that in disciplinary proceedings punishments had been meted out to 6 former officials who had been dismissed and barred from holding positions in the public sector. 27. Regarding the alleged unlawful intelligence activities on the part of DAS personnel, the State said that the necessary measures had been taken to address those allegations. The State said that as part of the corrective measures, the DAS had been abolished and its competencies redistributed among other institutions. With reference to the alleged loss of DAS archives, Colombia said that the Office of the Attorney General was investigating that situation. 28. With respect to Law 1621 of 2013, the State said that the law underwent a constitutional review by the Constitutional Court of Colombia. It said that the Constitutional Court concluded that “monitoring of the electromagnetic spectrum could not involved individual surveillance.” It argued that the law strengthens the systems of control for ensuring transparency and better oversight of intelligence operations. 29. As to the alleged violation of the right of access to information based on the nondisclosure of the intelligence information requested, the State argued that the alleged victims had failed to exhaust the action for constitutional protection. It said that that remedy was appropriate for the claim made, as the Constitutional Court of Colombia had recognized. 30. Colombia also argued that it had not violated the right to privacy and freedom of association of CCAJAR members. It held that the acts described as violations had been examined in the criminal investigations carried out into illegal intercepts by DAS agents. 4