93 322. When it comes to human rights defenders, the right to freedom of association protected under Article 16 of the American Convention encompasses, inter alia, the right to freely form and participate in organizations, associations or non-governmental groups devoted to human rights oversight and promotion and reporting violations of these rights.455 323. The bodies of the Inter-American system have pronounced on the dual dimension of the right to freely associate protected under Article 16 of the American Convention.456 This guarantee entails, on the one hand, that public authorities not limit or hamper the exercise thereof;457 and, on the other hand, the second dimension presupposes the obligation of States to create the legal and actual conditions in which defenders are able to freely perform their job.458 324. In view of these standards, the Inter-American Court has established that States have the duty to facilitate the means necessary for defenders to freely conduct their activities; protect them when they are the targets of threats to avoid assaults of their lives and integrity; refrain from imposing obstacles that hamper them from performing their job; and seriously and effectively investigate violations perpetrated against them, while combating impunity.459 An obligation of the State to ensure that all persons are able to freely exercise their right to associate without fear of being subjected to any violence stems from these principles.460 Accordingly, the IACHR has established that “any act that tends to impede the association of human rights defenders, or in any way impedes the purposes for which they have formally associated, is a direct attack on the defense of human rights.”461 325. Based on these considerations, the State can be considered responsible under article 16 of the American Convention when it fails to adopt reasonable measures of prevention of determined acts of violence which occur in the framework of an armed conflict, which discourage joining or b. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. c. The provisions of this article do not bar the imposition of legal restrictions, including even deprivation of the exercise of the right of association, on members of the armed forces and the police. 455 IA Court of HR, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparation, and Costs. Judgment April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par. 146. 456 IA Court of HR, Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment March 03, 2005. Series C No. 121, pars. 69-72; IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 rev. 1, March 7, 2006, par. 71. 457 IA Court of HR, Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama, Judgment February 2, 2001, Series C No. 72, par. 156; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Judgment April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par. 143. 458 IA Court of HR, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparation, and Costs. Judgment April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par. 146. 459 IA Court of HR, Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, par. 77; IA Court of HR, Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 91. 460 IA Court of HR, Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment March 03, 2005. Series C No. 121, par. 76. 461 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 rev. 1, March 7, 2006, par. 76.