Gloria Mercedes Carvajal and the journalist’s daughters Paola Andrea Carvajal Bolaños and María Alejandra Carvajal Bolaños. Finally, it stated that Ruth Dary Carvajal Carvajal (sister) and César Augusto Meneses Carvajal (nephew) requested asylum on March 12, 2010, and were granted refugee status on January 18, 2011. It indicated that the Office of the Prosecutor General made a note in the case file of the threats against Ruth Dary Carvajal Carvajal, and requested that the National Police provide security measures to the members of the family. 199. The State questioned the inclusion in this international proceeding of information related to the departure of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s relatives from Colombia as refugees, considering that the petitioner had not submitted the respective asylum decisions. The State was of the opinion that this information had been submitted “for information purposes only, with no further observations being admissible, given that the decisions [granting asylum] were not presented.”180 200. In this case, the IACHR has found that Nelson Carvajal’s relatives have been victims of threats and harassment subsequent to his murder, that the authorities knew of these threats, and that the State failed to implement effective measures to protect them and also failed to conduct an investigation to establish the facts and punish the perpetrators of those threats. The Colombian State acknowledged this situation, confirming that Nelson Carvajal’s case was plagued by threats to the journalist relatives.181 In the case of Judith Carvajal, although she was included in the Office of the Prosecutor General’s Protection Program for Victims and Witnesses, as stated in the case file, that measure was not effective and she was forced to leave the country. 201. The Commission finds that, in this context, the information provided by the petitioner and the evidence contained in the case file are sufficiently consistent and accurate to establish that Carvajal Carvajal’s relatives were in fact forced to leave Colombia due to well-founded fears for their safety. The State did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that it took actions to protect the members of this family, prevent their displacement, or facilitate their return, and the IACHR has no evidence leading to any conclusion other than what the petitioner has reported with respect to the matter. Indeed, the IACHR finds that their departure from the country is one of the foreseeable consequences of the threats received, the lack of State protection, and the impunity that has characterized this case, all attributable to the State. 202. Accordingly, the IACHR finds in this case that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s relatives were subject to de facto restrictions to their right to freedom of movement and residence, because the State’s failure to guarantee their right to humane treatment, through an investigation and timely protection or prevention measures, created serious insecurity and a well-founded fear in them that their lives and personal safety were in danger of being violated if they remained in Colombia, which led to their departure from the country. 203. The IACHR concludes that the State violated the rights enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to the relatives of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal, to wit: Paola Andrea Carvajal Bolaños, María Alejandra Carvajal Bolaños (daughters); Luz Stella Bolaños Rodríguez (spouse); Judith Carvajal Carvajal, Gloria Mercedes Carvajal Carvajal, Ruth Dary Carvajal Carvajal, Fernando Augusto Carvajal Carvajal (siblings); Cristhian Camilo Motta Carvajal, César Augusto Meneses Carvajal (nephews). 180 “The State finds that that information was provided by the petitioner for information purposes only, with no further observations being admissible, given that the aforementioned decisions were not presented. The argument of the representatives concerning the ‘confidentiality’ of those documents is understandable; however, and with a view to the transparency of the proceedings before the Honorable Commission, it would be important for them to be disclosed, not only in order to present the appropriate observations but also because in the opinion of the State it is essential that the IACHR should have access to them—without including that information in the international proceedings—as has been done in other cases and/or petitions.” Communication from the Colombian State dated November 18, 2013. MPC/OEA No. 1538/2013. Forwarding note 20135010027201-GDI dated November 13, 2013. Received by the IACHR on November 19, 2013. 181 Communication from the Colombian State dated July 15, 2009. DDH.GOI. No. 37793/1905. P. 29. Received by the IACHR on July 16, 2009.