- 67 - the Court finds that it does not have sufficient information to establish whether the right to freedom of movement and residence of María Estella Cepeda was violated. 191. On the other hand, the evidence before the Court reveals that Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón left Colombia several times following the death of his father. These trips abroad were made for different reasons, including coordination of international efforts (1994-1995 and 1999), presentation of progress in and obstacles to the case before the United Nations in the United States of America (1997), and attendance at a course of an academic nature in Costa Rica (1998).276 Since the statements taken as evidence do not refer to these trips abroad as exiles,277 the Court does not have other probative elements to determine whether Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón made these trips abroad as a result of the security situation in their country. 192. The Court also notes that the State alleged that it had not received information on the harassment and threats that occurred from 1994 to 2002. Nevertheless, the evidence provided permits the Court to determine that the State was aware of the situation of risk of Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón as of 1999. First, the Court observes that the Minister of the Interior received a letter dated November 6, 1999, in which Human Rights Watch expressed its concern regarding a death threat that Iván Cepeda and his wife had received the previous day.278 Furthermore, although Claudia Girón stated in her testimony that she and Iván Cepeda had been included in a State protection program since 1999,279 the State indicated that, on November 30, 1999, Iván Cepeda advised that he was not interested in the risk assessment offered by the State.280 193. Regarding the connection between the threats against Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón and the search for justice and truth, the testimony received reveals that the increase in the frequency of the threats was linked to the progress of the investigations up until the conviction of the perpetrators of the execution of Senator Manuel Cepeda in December 1999.281 Thus, the expert witness Beristain stated that, following the conviction of the two perpetrators of the murder, “the pressure against Iván and the Foundation increased, and an attempt was even made on his life in 2007.”282 Similarly, the Court notes that, in the said letter of November 6, 1999, Human Rights Watch linked the threat against Iván Cepeda and his wife to another 276 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz on January 4, 2010, supra note 257, folios 8299 to 8300. 277 See, for example, opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8241; sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro on December 30, 2009, supra note 260, folio 8545, and sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz on January 4, 2010, supra note 257, folios 8299 to 8300. From the last statement, it can be observed that they had to leave the country from 2000 to 2004, “this time as exiles.” 278 Cf. letter of November 6, 1999, from Human Rights Watch to the Ministry of National Defense (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 35 to the application, folio 1980). 279 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz on January 4, 2010, supra note 257, folio 8300. 280 Cf. note DAS.OJUR.102.No.4864 of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), of February 16, 2010 (merits file, tome VI, folio 1985). 281 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folios 8241 to 8243, and sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz, supra note 257, folio 8300. 282 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8243.