- 62 - parties by means of appropriate laws, regulations and practices that enable them to have real and effective access to the different deliberative mechanisms on equal terms, but also by the adoption of the required measures to guarantee its full exercise, taking into consideration the situation of vulnerability of the members of some social groups or sectors.255 174. In this case, the Court finds that the “agreement to prolong the truce,” signed by representatives of the FARC and the Peace Commission with regard to the UP, acknowledged the particular situation of risk that the candidates of the UP and allied parties, such as the PCC, could face by taking part in general elections and, therefore, established that the Government would “grant the [UP] and its leaders the essential guarantees and assurances to enable them to carry out their recruitment and electoral activities, in the same way as the other political parties.”256 175. As previously verified, Senator Manuel Cepeda tended towards a critical opposition to the different Governments in his newspaper articles and in his political and parliamentary activities (supra para. 71). While he was a leader of the UP and the PCC, his life was in constant danger, and this increased up until his death; consequently, he carried out his activities in a context of permanent harassment and threats owing to his political positions and to the absence of protection by State agents. Indeed, the parties recognize the political motives behind the extrajudicial execution (supra para. 73). 176. In this regard, although it could be considered that, even under threat, Senator Cepeda Vargas was able to exercise his political rights, freedom of expression and freedom of association, the fact that he continued to exercise them was obviously the reason for his extrajudicial execution. And this was precisely because its purpose was to impede his political activism, for which the exercise of these rights was essential. Consequently, the State did not create either the conditions or the due guarantees for Senator Cepeda, as a member of the UP in the said context, to have the real opportunity to exercise the function for which he had been democratically elected; particularly, by promoting the ideological vision he represented through his free participation in public debate, in exercise of his freedom of expression. In the final analysis, the activities of Senator Cepeda Vargas were obstructed by the violence against the political movement to which he belonged and, in this sense, his freedom of association was also violated. 177. Based on the above, the Court considers that the threats and the deliberate absence of protection faced by Senator Cepeda Vargas, owing to his participation in the democratic mechanisms to which he had access, were expressed by undue or unlawful pressure and restrictions on his political rights, freedom of expression and 255 Similarly, Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra note 65, para. 201; Juridical Situation and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 249, para. 89, and Juridical Situation and Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 46. 256 Agreement to extend the truce, La Uribe (Meta), of March 2, 1986. Cf. attachment 5 to the opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, supra note 77, folios 8341 to 8381. Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, when referring to the situation of the UP indicated that: “[t]he emergence of minority groups, movements and political parties as a result of the demobilization of former members of the guerrilla requires special protection and support from the State. The institutionalization of the conflict, the surrender of weapons and their substitution by the active exercise of democratic political participation and the renunciation of violence as a way of achieving a vision for society, are alternatives that must be guaranteed by all the authorities in order to avoid the so-called ‘dirty war’ ending up by closing the possibilities of reaching a consensus that unites all sectors of the population and permits peaceful coexistence.” Judgment delivered by the Second Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court in case No. T-439, supra note 93, folios 1354 to 1372.