profession. 134 Following the alleged events, in a communication received on May 30, 2000, the petitioner asked the IACHR to grant precautionary measures to protect the life and physical integrity of El Espectador journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima; Hollman Morris Rincón, the editor of the newspaper’s peace section; and Jorge Cardona Alzate, the judicial affairs editor. Pursuant to Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission granted the precautionary measures on June 2, 2000, which remain in force at the time this report is issued. In its decision, the IACHR called upon the Colombian State to take steps to protect the life and humane treatment of the alleged victim and the rest of the journalists mentioned, as well as to investigate the situation complained of. In compliance with this decision, the National Police assigned the journalist a security detail in June 2000. 66. In February 2002, Jineth Bedoya Lima began working at the newspaper El Tiempo. In May of 2003, the threats against Jineth Bedoya had begun once again. The journalist reported these threats to the State and was assigned a new security detail. 135 On August 18, 2003, Jineth Bedoya and her El Tiempo team were kidnapped again for 5 days while she was working in the town of Puerto Alvira in the department of Meta. The kidnapping was attributed to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). 136 In November 2008, the journalist was informed that her emails and communications were reportedly being intercepted by the Armed Forces. In November 2010, after publishing her book entitled Vida y Muerte del Mono Jojoy (“The Life and Death of Mono Jojoy”), the journalist again received threats that, according to security and intelligence agencies, came from the FARC. 137 Given the danger, the journalist decided to leave the country temporarily. She filed a complaint regarding these threats, which was dismissed in June 2014 by the Prosecutor’s Office, on the grounds that it was impossible to identify those responsible for the threats. 138 During 2011, Jineth Bedoya Lima received several threats. The court file contains four complaints of threats dated November 2010, May 2011, June 2011, and September 2011. 139 Those threats continued in 2012. 140 According to the case file, the Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaints because it was impossible to identify the potential perpetrators of these threats. 141 F. The Context 67. The parties acknowledge that, at the time of the events in this case, Colombia was embroiled in an internal armed conflict involving several illegal armed groups. In the context of this armed conflict, the Inter-American case law has demonstrated the existence of links between the armed forces and paramilitary groups at different times and places, which included omissions that allowed or facilitated the commission of acts by paramilitary groups, 142 and even specific acts of support 143 and the direct participation of State agents in paramilitary groups. 144 These ties have also been acknowledged in several decisions handed down by Colombia’s high courts, as the Inter-American Court observed in the case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis). 145 Annex 104. IACHR. File of Precautionary Measures. MC 132-00. Annex 104. IACHR. File of Precautionary Measures. MC 132-00. 136 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. 2003, para. 65. 137 Annex 105. Interview (FPJ-14) of Jineth Bedoya Lima, p. 21. December 28, 2012. Annex 14. Office of the National Inspector General, p. 9. Bogota D.C., April 23, 2013. 138 Annex 106. Office of the National Prosecutor General. Bogotá D.C., June 13, 2013, p. 129-133. Annex 14 to the communication of the petitioner received on May 29, 2015. 139 Annex 107. Office of the National Prosecutor General. Annexes 14, 20, 25 and 26 of the communication of the petitioner received on May 29, 2015. 140 Annex 108. Office of the National Prosecutor General. Criminal Proceeding, Executive Report. Cundinamarca. Bogotá D.C., 24-02-2014. Annex 26 to the communication of the petitioner received on May 29, 2015. 141 Annex 108. Office of the National Prosecutor General. Criminal Proceeding, Executive Report. Cundinamarca. Bogotá D.C., 24-02-2014. Annex 26 to the communication of the petitioner received on May 29, 2015. 142 Cfr. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I/A Court H.R). Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C, No. 109, para. 86c. 143 Cfr. I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, para. 123; I/A Court H.R. Case of the “La Rochela Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163, para. 82, 93 and 101.a. 144 Cfr. I/A Court H.R. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C, No. 109, para. 86a. 145 Cfr. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Afro-Descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, para. 249. Cfr. also Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Criminal Chamber: Review Judgment No 30516, March 11, 2009, Appeal Judgment 134 135 17