was not able to make progress in resolving the facts and the investigation lacked rigor, diligence, and exhaustiveness. 16. According to the petitioner, the request was granted on August 23, 2011, and the 49th Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation was assigned to the investigation. The petitioner stated that on December 12 and 13, 2011, the Unit made the first arraignment in the investigation, which formally charged Jesús Emiro Pereira Rivera in the crime of “aggravated criminal kidnapping in teleological connection with the torture of a protected individual and violent sexual assault.” On February 8, 2012, Mario Jaimes Mejía, alias “the Baker,” was arraigned for the same crimes. The petitioner added that on February 8, 2012, Alejandro Cárdenas Orozco was arraigned for the same crimes, and that he accepted the charges of kidnapping and torture. The petitioner recognized that after 11 years without significant progress in the investigation, these actions on the part of the State demonstrated for the first time a willingness to investigate. Nevertheless, the petitioner noted that obstacles to the effective administration of justice persist, which is why it requested application of the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies on the basis of unjustified delay. 17. The petitioner argued that the alleged violations of articles 4 and 5 of the Convention took four different forms: i) the failure to comply with the duty to guarantee given awareness of the threats being made to the alleged victim, as well as the fact that the place where she was kidnapped - the National Model Prison of Bogota - is State property; ii) the existence of evidence that state agents actively participated in the order to kidnap, torture, and sexually assault Jineth Bedoya Lima; iii) the death threats made during the approximately 16 hours during which the journalist was kidnapped; and iv) the absence of a full and effective investigation. 18. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 7, the petitioner stated that the journalist was illegally deprived of her freedom despite being in a place controlled by the State - the model prison - and having spoken with the guards there. The petitioner added that the alleged participation of State agents in the facts supports the claim that this right was infringed. 19. With regard to the alleged violation of articles 11 and 24 of the Convention and 7b of the Convention of Belem do Pará, the petitioner stated that the alleged victim was subjected to an act of violence against women of a physical, mental, and sexual nature as a means of humiliation, punishment, and repression for her work as a journalist. The petitioner argued that the modus operandi of this type of attack is different from armed attacks against male victims, and as a consequence it represents "a disproportionate gender-based violation." The petitioner added that this attack took place in the context of an armed conflict in which, as a result of her publications, the journalist was seen by her captors as sympathizing with the FARC. The petitioner held that the facts also affected the alleged victim’s right to equality, as members of the public prosecutor's office contributed to re-victimizing treatment by building a theory that the journalist was the lover of a FARC guerrilla and undervaluing the charges involving violent criminal conduct based on sex. At the same time, the petitioner alleged that the fact that in the context of the investigations, the authorities made assumptions to conclude that the journalist had a romantic relationship with a member of the FARC reveals the projection of a recurring stereotype in cases of violence against women, that "it happened because of something she herself was looking for." In this sense, the petitioner argued that with these procedural assumptions, investigators also violated the alleged victim’s right to privacy and honor. Finally, the petitioner alleged that under the Convention of Belem do Pará, the State has a greater duty to investigate and punish, a duty that has not been fulfilled. 20. Regarding the alleged violation of articles 8 and 25, the petitioner alleged that the investigation carried out by State authorities was characterized by long periods of inactivity, proceedings that were unnecessary for obtaining relevant results, and delays in performing relevant proceedings. Petitioners stated that not only was there an unjustified delay in the administration of justice, but the Office of the Attorney General failed to perform an investigation that measured up to international standards and the gravity of the rights violations involved. 21. With regard to the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the petitioner indicated that both dimensions of the right to freedom of expression were violated, given that Jineth Bedoya was attacked directly and disproportionately for the fact of exercising her profession. In addition, the petitioner argued that the social