24 108. The State asserts that there is no violation of Article 16 of the American Convention because the mere fact of belonging to a non-governmental organization or a Communal Action Board (Junta de Acción Comunal) does not imply a violation of this right. The State points out that the violations of the right to freedom of association are not related to the characteristics of the person affected, but to specific actions that have violated the core of this right, as has been understood by the inter-American system. 109. The State also rejects the petitioners’ arguments related to Articles 17(1) and 19 of the American Convention. It alludes in particular to the fact that Article 17(1) was only admitted in the case of Mery Naranjo et al. (Admissibility Report No. 46/07) and Article 19(1) in the case of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa (Admissibility Report No. 3/07). It indicates expressly that the arguments related to rights not admitted should be dismissed. 110. On the right to property and Article 21 of the American Convention, the State indicates that it was not violated because it has not been shown that the alleged destruction of property of the alleged victims was by state agents. In the case of impairment of the property rights of Ms. Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, the Office of the Attorney General already convicted one person for these acts. 111. As regards Article 22(1) of the American Convention, the State considers that it cannot be found responsible for the forced displacement of the aforementioned women human rights defenders given that there is no evidence that the alleged threats that led to their displacement came from or were tolerated by state agents. Nor does it consider it proven that there was a causal nexus between the alleged threats and the need for the women human rights defenders to leave their places of residence. 112. The State also adduces in general terms that the facts do not constitute a violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention. IV. PROVEN FACTS 113. Presented below are the Commission’s findings of fact and of law relative to the claims made by the petitioners and by the State. Pursuant to Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, in its analysis the Commission bases its findings on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, the information obtained during the hearing with the Commission on this case,19 and information which is a matter of public knowledge.20 114. As to the assessment of the evidence in this case, at the outset the IACHR must highlight that in an international legal proceeding on human rights violations, the standards of proof are more 19 st Audio, IACHR, Hearing, 131 Session, ˚Comuna 13” Cases 12.596 – Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, 12.595 – Miriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa, and 12.621 – Teresa Yarce, Mery Naranjo and Socorro Mosquera, Colombia, March 12, 2008. 20 Article 43(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure reads as follows: “The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.”