return to Santa Lucía in 2006, Mrs. B.A. resumed her activities as Social Organization Officer which, as mentioned, included organizing unions. Similarly, in 2011, the Departmental Human Rights Office in the municipality of La Gomera, in the Department of Escuintla, gave her an award for her efforts to promote women’s rights (supra para. 100). 231 Consequently, the Court considers that, in 2004, Mrs. B.A. was engaged in activities to promote union rights and the right to the truth. Upon her return to Santa Lucía in 2006, and at least up to 2011, she carried out activities to promote women’s rights. In view of the foregoing, the Court will consider her as a human rights defender during these periods. B) Rights to life and personal integrity in relation to the obligation to guarantee rights B.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 133. The Commission argued that the State is “responsible for the violation of the right to life to the detriment of [A.A.],” since it knew that he faced a situation of real and imminent danger. In this regard, it stated that on November 26, 2003, Mrs. B.A. reported to the Public Prosecution Service that a former kaibil of the Guatemalan Army had threatened her, her father and her son in a telephone call. According to information provided by B.A., and not disputed by the State, family A “informed the municipal Mayor that a group of armed men were watching the house of [A.A.] at night,” prior to his death. However, the State had not adopted specific measures of protection and had not investigated the situation, despite the fact that Mr. A.A. “had the exact profile of the defenders who were being attacked” in the specific context of violations of the rights of human rights defenders working in Guatemala who demanded justice for the events that occurred during the armed conflict. In addition, the Commission argued that the loss of a loved one in a context such as the one described in this case, among other factors, led to the violation of the right to personal integrity of his relatives. 134. At the same time, the Commission presented five groups of arguments to support the alleged violation of the right to psychological and moral integrity of Mr. A.A.’s family, given that the State had knowledge of the threats made against those individuals, but did not investigate those threats or provide them with measures of protection. 232 For those reasons, and in view of the harassment, surveillance and attacks they suffered in the days following Mr. A.A.’s murder, the State violated their right to psychological and moral integrity. 135. The representatives argued that Mr. A.A.’s murder occurred “after he and his family had suffered different acts of intimidation and the Public Prosecution Service had received a complaint about threats made against him by [a] former kaibil […]. The absence of investigative procedures in relation to these events not only created the right conditions for subsequent threats and, eventually for his murder, but made the family [A] decide not to report the events that occurred afterwards to that institution, and to others.” The representatives pointed out that, at the time of the events, there was a real and imminent danger to the life of A.A. They argued that “the death threat was especially serious [considering] the characteristics of the presumed aggressor, a former kaibil, […] those of the family attacked, [the situation] of human rights defenders and demobilized combatants, the post-conflict context and the fact that the threats were clearly linked to [his] community leadership, promotion of social auditing and the participatory citizenship of defenders.” They added that, prior to his death, the family had reported acts of surveillance and harassment to the municipal Mayor. Consequently, “by not investigating the facts, or providing due protection, [the State] did not guarantee [A.A.] and his family the full enjoyment of rights recognized in the Convention […].” Therefore, “[A.A.’s] right to 231 The Court recalls that in 2009 she was elected as the Representative of Women’s Organizations before the Departmental Development Council of Escuintla (supra para. 100). 232 It alleged that: i) although the presumed threats received by B.A. in December 2003 were reported to the Mediation Center of the Judicial Body, these were not investigated; ii) the aforementioned threat made in 2003 by a supposed former kaibil was not investigated either; iii) following Mr. A.A.’s death the family suffered threats, harassment and surveillance in their home; however, those facts were not properly investigated nor did the relatives receive protection from the State, even though the threats had been reported to the authorities; iv) regarding the facts related to the supposed attack of January 14, 2005 against B.A., no significant procedures were carried out to investigate these; and v) although the State indicated that it had offered to initiate a request for protection for Family A, this offer was made in 2008. 42