freedom of expression. It is the duty of the States to prevent and investigate such occurrences, punish their perpetrators and to ensure that victims receive due compensation.” 212 In this sense, the Court considers that journalists must enjoy protection in exercising their profession, as part of the duty to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. 148. In this case, the Court determined that the State was responsible for the violation of Mr. Palacio Urrutia’s freedom of expression in light of the criminal and civil sentence imposed for the publication of his article "NO to lies." The State also recognized that in the trial carried out against him and the other victims, proceedings occurred contrary to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, due to the fact that there was an inequality in the process and the guarantees of independence and impartiality were affected, in addition to the fact that there was a violation of the right to a defense. The Court also determined that, after the publication of the aforementioned article, during the criminal proceedings against him, and after the pardon was granted, there was an environment of confrontation and conflict between the then President and Mr. Palacio Urrutia. 149. Mr. Palacio Urrutia left Ecuador after his resignation to relocate his residence in the United States of America from August 2011. In this regard, the Court notes that Mr. Palacio Urrutia declared, during the public hearing, that his decision to leave Ecuador to live in the United States of America was due to the fact that he and his family “[lived in] a climate of terror”, in reference to the expressions that the then President made against him in his weekly program. 213 Furthermore, Mr. Palacio Urrutia stated that he received threats on Twitter from third parties, and that there was a death threat against his son investigated by the police, that located the computer from which those threats were issued, without locating those responsible. 214 In these circumstances, the alleged victim explained, he “realized that what he was risking was the fact that [he] might go to jail or even that they kill me.” 215 Additionally, the Court notes that on August 22, 2012, the government of the United States of America granted asylum to Mr. Palacio Urrutia and his family, by virtue of Article 208 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 216 150. In this regard, the Court considers that in this case the actions of the State, particularly the trial and criminal sentence imposed on Mr. Palacio Urrutia, which occurred with a lack of guarantee of due process, and the statements of the then President in the media, generated insecurity and a well-founded fear in the alleged victim that the State would not act in the face of the possible risk of being deprived of his liberty or his life. Alternatively, there is no evidence that the State has carried out actions aimed at protecting Mr. Palacio Urrutia from the threats made against him or his family, or that measures have been taken that allow him a voluntary, dignified, and safe return. Consequently, the Court considers that a de facto restriction was set regarding the right of movement that also led to the indirect restriction of Mr. Palacio Urrutia’s freedom of expression, and therefore a violation of Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to articles 13 and 1(1) of the same instrument. E. Right to work 212 IACHR. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, adopted in October 2000, Article 9. 213 Cf. Statement to the public hearing by Emilio Palacio Urrutia. 214 Cf. Statement to the public hearing by Emilio Palacio Urrutia. 215 Cf. Statement to the public hearing by Emilio Palacio Urrutia. 216 Cf. United States of America. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. 49