- 32 - 86. Thus, in view of the harassment and threats that Senator Cepeda suffered owing to his membership in these political parties, personally and together with other activists and leaders, the declarations of these State officials not only expressed a conduct of intolerance, but could also have contributed to accentuating or exacerbating situations of hostility, intolerance or antipathy by public officials or other sectors of the population towards those connected with the UP and, therefore, towards Senator Cepeda.110 87. Consequently, bearing in mind the statements made by State authorities and international organizations, the Court observes that the facts of the instant case occurred in the said context of systematic violence against the members of the UP. A.2 Special obligation of protection in relation to Senator Cepeda Vargas 88. As the State has admitted, and as confirmed by the office of the Attorney General of the Nation and the Council of State (infra para. 96), the national authorities were informed of the threats against several members of the UP, including Senator Cepeda. 89. On October 23, 1992, the Commission ordered precautionary measures in favor of Álvaro Vásquez del Real, Manuel Cepeda Vargas and Aída Abella Esquivel for the State to protect their life and personal integrity in the face of the “imminent danger owing to the campaign of threats and intimidation against them at [that] time.”111 The measures were granted based on the threats, surveillance of leaders of these parties, media campaigns connecting the UP and the PCC to the insurgency in Colombia, and the raid on the UP offices, among other actions.112 90. UP spokesmen denounced five plans against the members of this political movement; namely, “Operation Condor” (1985), “Baile Rojo” (1986), “Esmeralda” (1988), “Coup de grâce” (1992) and “Retorno” (1993).113 According to complaints made by Senator Cepeda Vargas and other leaders of the UP and the PCC, at the beginning of the 1990s, these leaders became aware that a plan to exterminate its because they considered that it was the ‘political arm of the insurgency’ – the ‘party of the insurgency.’” Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán, supra note 83, 8326. 110 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 148, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 160. Similarly, judgment delivered by the Second Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court in case No. T-439 on July 2, 1992: “[t]herefore the political situation of the Patriotic Union at that time and in those circumstances was relevant to reach a positive conclusion about the claimed threat. The formal or merely word-ofmouth connection with the Patriotic Union, in the context of the ideological and political persecution unleashed against its members or those who sympathized with it, is a determinant factor in the case in order to affirm that the belief that his life was in danger was reasonable, in view of the applicant’s specific circumstances” (evidence file, tome III, attachment 11 to the application, folio 1368). 111 Cf. letter addressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time on October 23, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, attachment 13 to the application, folios 1377 to 1378). 112 Cf. letter addressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time on October 23, 1992, supra note 111, folios 1377 to 1378. 113 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán, supra note 83, folio 8324; Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, supra note 77, folios 8354, and Campos Zornosa, Yezid, “Memorias de los Silenciados,” Editorial CEICOS, Bogotá, Colombia, 2003 (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 42 to the application, folio 2043).