47 agreements existed with civil organizations representing the rural workers to provide families in the settlements with the services of human rights defenders, community services and legal assistance, in addition to the participation of those organizations in “specific discussion mechanisms to develop programs relating to the agrarian reform policy,” as well as policies to combat violence in rural areas. * * * 169. Article 15 of the American Convention recognizes the right of peaceful assembly, without arms; while freedom of association, embodied in Article 16 of the Convention establishes the right of assembly and is characterized by authorizing individuals to create or take part in entities or organizations in order to act collectively to achieve very diverse purposes, provided they are legitimate. Contrary to freedom of association, the right of assembly does not necessarily involve the creation of or participation in an entity or organization, but can be expressed in a sporadic meeting or assembly for very diverse purposes, while it is peaceful and in keeping with the Convention. In view of the foregoing, and considering that the arguments of the parties in this case refer principally to restrictions imposed by the State on the freedom of association of the members of COANA and ADECON that were possibly unjustified, the Court will proceed to examine exclusively whether the State violated the right embodied in Article 16 of the Convention to the detriment of the victims. 170. The Court has indicated that Article 16(1) of the American Convention establishes that anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction of a State Party has the right to associate freely with other persons, without an intervention of the public authorities that restricts or obstructs the exercise of the said right. This then is the right to assemble in order to seek the common achievement of a lawful purpose, without pressure or interference that could alter or distort this purpose.153 171. In addition to the said negative obligations, the Inter-American Court has observed that freedom of association also “gives rise to positive obligations to prevent attacks against it, to protect those who exercise it, and to investigate violations of this freedom.” These positive obligations must be adopted even in the sphere of relations between individuals, when necessary.154 172. In the instant case, according to the Commission and the representatives, the alleged violation of freedom of association was related to the work of the promotion and defense of the human rights of rural workers. In this regard, as this Court has emphasized,155 States have the obligation to facilitate the means for human rights defenders to carry out their activities freely, to protect them when they are threatened in order to avoid attempts against their life and personal integrity, to abstain from imposing obstacles that obstruct their work, and to investigate seriously and effectively any violations perpetrated against them, combating impunity. 153 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 46, para. 156; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 144, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 143. 154 Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 76; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 153, para. 144 and Case of Kawas Fernandez, supra note 35, para. 144. 155 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77; and Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 91, and Case of Kawas Fernandéz, supra note 35, para. 145.