43 145. In the instant case, the analysis of the potential violation of the right of freedom of association, as alleged by the representatives, must be made in the context of the link between the exercise of said right and the promotion and defense of human rights. In this regard, the Court has established that the States have the duty to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to ward off any attempt on their life or safety; to refrain from placing restrictions that would hinder the performance of their work, and to conduct serious and effective investigations of any violations against them, thus preventing impunity.186 146. From this perspective, Article 16 of the American Convention also includes the right of individuals to set up and participate freely in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups involved in human rights monitoring, reporting and promotion. Given the important role of human rights defenders in democratic societies,187 the free and full exercise of this right imposes upon the State the duty to create the legal and factual conditions for them to be able to freely perform their task. 147. The State acknowledged that the work of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was performed “in her role as defender of human rights and of environmental and natural resource preservation” and recognized “the many achievements gained through her different activities.” In connection with said acknowledgement, this Court finds it appropriate to point out that the defense of human rights is not limited to civil and political rights, but necessarily involves economic, social and cultural rights monitoring, reporting and education, in accordance with the principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention,188 and the Inter-American Democratic Charter189 and upheld by this Court in its case law.190 In the same vein, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of 186 Cf. 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 Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 8, para. 91. 187 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. Preliminary Objections and Merits, supra note 186, para. 74; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 8, para. 87. In the same vein, cf. Provisional Measures Mery Naranjo. Order of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 8; Provisional Measures Mery Naranjo. Order of January 31, 2008, Considering clause No. 4; Provisional Measures Lysias Fleury. Order of June 7, 2003, Considering clause No. 5; Provisional Measures Lysias Fleury. Order of December 2, 2003, Considering clause No. 10; Provisional Measures Carlos Nieto et al. Order of July 9, 2004, Considering clause No. 10; Provisional Measures Álvarez et al. Order of February 8, 2008, Considering clause No. 23; Provisional Measures Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"). Order of February 9, 2006, Considering clause No. 14; Provisional Measures in favor of the Members of the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team (ECAP). Order of October 20, 2006, Considering clause No. 10. 188 In its Preamble, the American Convention recognizes that “the ideal of free men enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights.” 189 The Inter-American Democratic Charter provides that “democracy is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights in their universality, indivisibility and interdependence, embodied in the respective constitutions of States and in inter-American and international human rights instruments.” 190 Among other cases: Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 88, para. 191; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 96, paras. 156 and 168; Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 149, 161, 166, 170 and 176; Case of Huilca-Tecse. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 183, para. 67; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 77, 87, 99, 101,