60 A. Right to Personal Integrity (Article 5.1271), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 211. The right to personal integrity protected under Article 5 of the American Convention is fundamental in the system of guarantees of the American Convention.272 States are prohibited from imposing an absolute suspension on this right under Article 27.2 of the same instrument in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security.” 212. Pursuant to Article 1.1 of the American Convention, the right to personal integrity must be respected and ensured by the State “without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition.” 213. The petitioners make several claims before the IACHR linked to the guarantee of the right to personal integrity of five women human rights defenders in Comuna 13 of Medellin. They view it as a failure of the State in its duty to protect the women’s personal integrity and organizational work, in a context of risk to human rights defenders, who report crimes committed by the paramilitary forces in an area affected by the Colombian armed conflict. They contend that said defenders have endured ongoing acts of harassment and threats by state and paramilitary actors, including the arbitrary detention of Mmes Mosquera, Naranjo and Yarce from November 12 to 21, 2002; the murder of Ms. Yarce on October 6, 2004; the forcible displacement of Ms. Rua, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo from 2002 until the present time; the gradual destruction of the homes of Ms. Rua and Ospina from 2002 to 2003; the disruption and inability to work of each of the above listed defenders in Comuna 13; and the extension of these abuses to these women’s next of kin. 214. The petitioners also assert that these acts have taken place in a context of armed conflict, in which the State carried out several military operations in Comuna 13 during 2002, which helped the paramilitary presence to gain a stronghold in said locality. The State has argued before the IACHR that it is not responsible for the alleged violations; that it has properly investigated the crimes; and that it has made a significant effort to restore law and order in Comuna 13. 215. The Commission will proceed to examine the arguments of the parties by presenting considerations pertaining to the scope of the duty of protection and prevention set forth in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, and its legal consequences on the activity of the human rights defenders. It will then examine the threats and acts of harassment, the forced displacement, and the unlawful search and occupation of the homes of Ms. Rúa Figueroa and Ospina Bastidas, in light of these considerations. The violations linked to Article 5.1, in relation to the arbitrary detention of Ms. Naranjo, Mosquera and Yarce; the forced displacement of Ms. Rúa, Ospina, Mosquera and Naranjo; and the infringement of the human rights of the next of kin of the five defenders will be addressed in subsequent sections. 271 Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes that “every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 272 par. 234. IACHR, Merits Report No. 64/11, Case 12.573, Marino Lopez et al. (Operation Genesis), Colombia, March 31, 2011,