- 63 - freedom of association, and also by a rupture of the rules of the democratic game. In addition, since the political motive for the murder has been acknowledged (supra para. 73), the Court considers that the extrajudicial execution of an opponent for political reasons not only entails the violation of several human rights, but also breaches the principles upon which the rule of law is based, and directly violates the democratic system, inasmuch as it results from a failure to ensure that the different authorities abide by their obligation to protect nationally and internationally recognized human rights, and submit to the domestic organs that guarantee the observance of those rights. 178. In this regard, it is unnecessary to examine the impact that the general situation of danger faced by Senator Cepeda and his death had on the electorate’s right to vote. Moreover, it is not incumbent on the Court to analyze the relationship between Senator Cepeda’s death and the Patriotic Union’s loss of legal status. However, it is possible to consider that the violation of Mr. Cepeda’s rights had threatening and intimidating effects for the collectivity of individuals who were members of his political party or who sympathized with his ideas. The violations in this case went beyond the readers of his column in the weekly publication, Voz, to members and sympathizers of the UP, and those who voted for this party. 179. Consequently, the State is responsible for violating the rights to the protection of honor and dignity, to freedom of expression and to freedom of association and the political rights of Mr. Cepeda Vargas, established in Articles 11, 13(1), 16 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. IV.6 RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF THE NEXT OF KIN (ARTICLES 5, 11 AND 22, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 180. The State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity of the victim’s direct family (Iván Cepeda Castro, María Cepeda Castro and Olga Navia Soto), and of his sisters and brother, owing to the mental and moral effects of the death of Senator Cepeda Vargas; and they “have endured additional suffering owing to the acts or omissions of State authorities in relation to the perpetration of the facts.” Although the State initially rejected responsibility with regard to Claudia Girón Ortiz, Iván Cepeda Castro’s wife, during the public hearing it indicated that, in good faith, it extended its acknowledgement of responsibility to her, as this was fair, “based on the testimony provided.” 181. The Court assesses this acknowledgement of responsibility and considers that the suffering endured by the next of kin as a result of the extrajudicial execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas, is also proved, among other evidence, by the testimony rendered before the Court so that, in this regard, it declares that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention (infra para. 210). 182. Moreover, the State did not extend its acknowledgement of responsibility to the alleged violation of Article 22 of the Convention, considering that there was no relationship between the possible situation of risk of the next of kin and the execution of Senator Cepeda. It the absence of this connection, it asked the Court to declare that it had not violated this right, because there was no material or legal evidence to declare this violation.