52 Human Rights Unit, had to go into exile twice due to death threats against him and his family.166 170. The Court finds that the pattern of violence and threats that occurred in this case against judicial officials, the next of kin of the victims and witnesses had the effect of intimidating and frightening them so that they would not collaborate in the search for the truth. As a result, the progress of the proceedings was hindered. This situation was aggravated because safety measures were not adopted to protect some of the threatened officials, the next of kin of the victims and the witnesses. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that there was an investigation into or punishment for these acts of harassment and violence, which intensifies the context of intimidation and defenselessness created by the actions of the paramilitary groups and State agents. Thus, the proper function of the judiciary and the administration of justice has been affected in the terms of the obligations of the State to act as guarantor as established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, the fact that all of those responsible for the events have not been punished makes the intimidation permanent and, to some extent, explains the grave negligence in furthering the investigation. 171. This Court finds that, in order to comply with the obligation to investigate within the framework of the guarantees of due process, the State must take all necessary measures to protect judicial officers, investigators, witnesses and the victims’ next of kin from harassment and threats which are designed to obstruct the proceedings, prevent a clarification of the events of the case, and prevent the identification of those responsible for such events.167 Obstacles and obstructions * * * 172. The Court also finds that the investigation encountered obstacles when capturing some individuals and ensuring the appearance of some individuals before the judges. These obstacles are documented in several official communications issued by officials of the mobile 166 Cf. testimony of Virgilio Hernández Castellanos given before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on January 31 and February 1, 2007. The witness indicated to the Court that in both cases, his condition as a next of kin of the victim affected the threats to which he was subjected. On this issued he stated that: I was harassed by members of the security forces that were the subject of several investigations for the violation of human rights. These individuals, through a variety of Colombian media outlets, indicated that there were several reasons that I should recuse myself from investigating any member of the security forces, or any member of the paramilitaries, because, according to them, my motivation was revenge, for a vindictive or inquisitorial fury, as one journalist in Colombia told me in his columns. The witness stated that, on the day following the massacre, he manifested to the media that “the massacre could not have been executed by the FARC, because the [Judicial Commission] was investigating paramilitary groups and members of the security forces that were allegedly working with those groups.” The witness added that “I had to go into exile for some six months due to the threats to which I was subjected once I had made my statements.” He added that he had to return to exile “years later when I had to leave my position as prosecutor. At that time I also had to bring my children and my spouse into exile as well, for a little more than two years.” Likewise, he indicated that “the threats were frequent and repetitive” and that in one written threat in particular “they reminded me that I was the son of one of the victims of La Rochela and they ordered me to distance myself from the investigations into the paramilitaries, under threat to my life and, textually, they threatened to “extinguish my family tree.” 167 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 199; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para 400; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para 268; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 12, para 299.