- 66 - has] suffered constant threats.”267 Moreover, she has reported the threats against her.268 188. Regarding the alleged threats, María Estella Cepeda stated that “the close family group of [her] brother, his children and his daughter-in-law, were victims of harassment and of anxiety knowing that their father was in such danger, and they were also threatened personally.”269 In this regard, Claudia Girón testified that “[m]ost of the threats were made by telephone and, in the messages, we were told that we were being followed,” and that “[s]ome threats were addressed at [her] directly, with insults and stating that [she] would be raped and dismembered.”270 189. With regard to María Cepeda, the Court notes that she left the country in 1984 to study in Bulgaria. She stated that this “was the best possibility that [her] father found to get [them] away from the climate of anxiety and constant threats in which [they] were living.”271 In 1987, she met her husband, a Greek national; she married him in 1988 and their first daughter was born in 1990.272 In 1992, María Cepeda returned to Colombia, planning to live there together with her family; nevertheless, she decided to abandon the country again after four months, owing to the lack of security for her family.273 In August 1994, following her father’s death, she returned to Colombia again for approximately three months.274 The Court also notes the observation of expert witness Beristain that “[i]n 15 years, María’s family has only travelled twice to Colombia […], and both times it was in an environment of fear and measures of security that altered her normal coexistence with her brother and her relatives.”275 190. The Court considers that even though the fact that María Estella Cepeda lived outside Colombia before and at the time of the murder could indicate a violation of her right to freedom of movement and residence, because Article 22(5) of the Convention also encompasses the right of entry into the country of which the person in question is a national, according to the affidavit, she has not tried to return to live in Colombia since 1992. Even though her decisions to leave the country in 1984 and in 1992 took place in the context of the danger faced by her father, the Court observes that the parties have not provided indications or evidence, such as information about supposed threats linked to María Cepeda, about the specific situation of danger that prevented her return to Colombia at those times, or following her father’s death. Consequently, 267 Testimony given by María Estella Cepeda Vargas at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2010. 268 Cf. Amnesty International press communiqué No. AU 235/01 of September 17, 2001 (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 38 to the application, folios 1990 to 1991). 269 Testimony given by María Estella Cepeda Vargas at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2010. 270 Sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz, supra note 257, folio 8300 271 Sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro, supra note 260, folio 8541. 272 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro, supra note 260, folio 8541. 273 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro, supra note 260, folio 8542. 274 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro, supra note 260, folio 8543. 275 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folios 8240 to 8241.