- 72 - violence in the country, and that the said rights had also been violated in the case of his next of kin.305 207. In the said decision, the Constitutional Court of Colombia analyzed the content of the message issued by the media as part of President Álvaro Uribe’s re-election campaign, indicating that “a simple reading of the ‘testimonial’ is sufficient to distinguish between the statements [that correspond to facts], and other statements that express an opinion or ethical judgment about the said facts.” That court concluded that “accusing an individual or a group of individuals of killing and injuring civilians, without providing evidence to justify such serious statements, goes beyond the limits of freedom of expression, because it is not reasonable to understand that such statements are shielded by the protection of freedom of expression, however extensive this may be.” Lastly, in this judgment, the Constitutional Court ordered the manager of the President’s re-election campaign to “explicitly and publicly state [in a communiqué] that the campaign had incurred in error by disseminating, as part of its publicity strategy, a message whose content had not been proved even though it included assertions that were injurious to the good name and honor of Iván Cepeda Castro and his next of kin.” 306 208. The Court has analyzed the said judgment of the Constitutional Court, insofar as it declared that the right to honor and dignity of Iván Cepeda Castro and his next of kin had been violated by the said publicity message and ordered pertinent reparations at the domestic level. In these terms, 307 the Court declares the corresponding violation (infra para. 210). 209. The Court finds that the situation of stigmatization that affects the next of kin of Senator Cepeda Vargas has exposed them to continued threats and harassment in their search to clarify the facts. These circumstances have been further exacerbated by the extended length of time that has elapsed without all the responsibilities for the facts having been clarified.308 210. In brief, the Court concludes that the State has incurred international responsibility for the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas: his children Iván Cepeda Castro and María Cepeda Castro; his common-law wife Olga Navia Soto (deceased); his daughter-in-law Claudia Girón Ortiz; and his sisters and brother, María Estella Cepeda Vargas, Ruth Cepeda Vargas, Gloria María Cepeda Vargas, Álvaro Cepeda Vargas and Cecilia Cepeda Vargas (deceased), based on the suffering endured by the next of kin as a result of the extrajudicial execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas. Furthermore, the Court has determined that, at both the initial stage of the investigations, and in more recent times, Iván Cepeda Castro, María Estella Cepeda Vargas and Claudia Girón have received threats owing to their search for justice and truth, and this constitutes a violation of their right to personal integrity, 305 Cf. Ruling of the Fifth Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia of November 20, 2006, in case T-13911055, supra note 304, folios 2036 to 2037. 306 Cf. Ruling of the Fifth Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia of November 20, 2006, in case T-13911055, supra note 304, folios 2029, 2032 and 2039. 307 Cf. regarding what is relevant in relation to “ensuring harmonization with the provisions of the Convention,” Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 38, paras. 124 and 125; and Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 27, para. 128. 308 Cf. Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 272; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 168, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 113.