the HNP (supra para. 36). For five years, Mr. Fleury lived in hiding in Haiti, separated from his family, and with frequent displacements within Haitian territory so that his assailants could not to find him (supra paras. 41 and 42). Finally, Mr. Fleury and his family had to go into exile and request refugee status in the United States of America because they feared for their safety in Haiti (supra para. 43). In this regard, Mrs. Fleury has stated that, after the facts occurred against her husband, unknown individuals “came to look for him frequently” and once she saw one of the alleged perpetrators watching her (supra para. 42). She added that all of this made her afraid.85 96. Based on the above considerations, the Court declares that the State is responsible for violating the right to freedom of movement and residence recognized in Article 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lysias Fleury, Rose Lilienne Benoit Fleury, and Rose Metchnikov, Flemingkov and Heulingher Fleury. VII.5 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION A. Arguments 97. The representatives argued that when a State commits violations against human rights defenders using threats to life, liberty and personal integrity perpetrated in reprisal for their work, which also leads to the exile of a human rights defender, as in this case, the freedom of association of the victim is restricted and, consequently, that right is violated in the terms of the American Convention. The representatives indicated that due to his profession, Mr. Fleury was known to the members of the Haitian National Police. In addition, Mr. Fleury, and his family, continued to receive threats from officials years after his release. All of the above proves that Mr. Fleury has been the target of harassment owing to his work as a human rights defender. Based on the foregoing, they considered that Mr. Fleury was also a victim of a violation of the rights recognized in Article 16 of the American Convention. 98. Although the Commission did not allege the violation of this right, it did refer in its application to the facts mentioned by the representatives. B. Considerations of the Court 99. Article 16(1) of the American Convention establishes that those who are under the jurisdiction of the States Parties have the right and the freedom to associate freely with others, without any interference from the public authorities that could limit or impair the exercise of this right. Thus, this is the right to associate with others in order to achieve a lawful common objective without pressure or interference that could alter or interfere with this objective.86 100. In addition to these negative obligations, the Inter-American Court has observed that freedom of association also “gives rise to positive obligations to prevent attacks on it, to 85 Testimony of Lilienne Benoit of November 13, 2009 (attachment 11 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, tome 2, folio 659, para. 7). 86 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 156, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 143. 27