In a country with the complexities of Colombia, public denial by the State, without sufficient evidence, of a crime, threat, or harassment committed against an individual or a group of individuals, who, in their capacity as independent journalists or human rights defenders, investigate and question the State itself, becomes a stand-alone violation of the fundamental right of those threatened to dignity, honor, and the truth. Furthermore, it constitutes a violation of society’s right to collective memory. It could even constitute a grave breach of the duty to guarantee and protect the fundamental rights threatened. Indeed, in some extreme situations, when such statements incite violence against vulnerable individuals and groups, this conduct may even constitute a direct violation of those individuals’ right to personal safety and related rights. In these cases, if the public official causes harm, the State must provide redress and file an action against the perpetrator thereof.589 327. The IACHR considers that repeated vilifying statements by public officials for exercise of a right recognized by international conventions or domestic legislation may exacerbate the climate of hostility and intolerance on the part of different sectors of the population or public officials, making exercise of the right ineffective or worthless. The IACHR recalls that States are guarantors of individuals’ fundamental rights, and therefore, public officials’ exercise of freedom of expression is subject to certain special duties, such as verifying in a reasonable manner the truth of the facts on which their statements or opinions are based.590 328. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that, in addition to being a factor in attributing international responsibility to the State for the acts of violence, stigmatization, and harassment, the statements of senior officials and some state agencies constituted an impairment of CAJAR members’ right to honor and dignity. D. Right to freedom of movement and residence and the rights of the child (Articles 22(1)591 and 19592 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) 329. Article 22 of the American Convention provides for the protection of the right to [freedom of] movement and residence, that is, the right of all persons lawfully within a State to move freely within that State and to choose their place of residence; and the right of such persons to enter, to remain in, or to leave the State’s territory without any unlawful interference.593 Furthermore, the Court has held that this right may be violated when an individual is the victim of threats or harassment and the State fails to provide the necessary guarantees to ensure they may move and reside freely within the territory in question, even when the threats and harassment come from non-State actors.594 330. The Court has found violations of Article 22(1) of the Convention in different cases of persons who were forced into exile “without being able or wanting to return home owing to a well-founded fear of persecution.”595 In this respect, the Court has noted the social, family, and economic impact that having to go into exile had on these persons.596 331. As the findings of fact in this case reveal, Soraya Gutiérrez, Rafael Barrios, Luis Pérez, and Miguel Puerto, together with their respective families, had to leave Colombia due to the acts of violence, threats, and Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment T-1037 de 2008. M.P. Jaime Córdoba Triviño. IACHR, Inter-American Legal Framework regarding the Right to Freedom of Expression, OEA/Ser.L/V/IIIACHR/RELE/INF.2/09/, December 30, 2009, paragraph 202. 591 Article 22(1) of the American Convention: Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. 592 Article 19 of the American Convention: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 593 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 138. 594 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, paragraph 220. 595 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraphs 140, 141, and 144. 596 I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 141. 589 590 64