67 and caused her forced displacement.303 Nonetheless, in the investigation undertaken by the authorities into her complaint, it does not appear that the possible involvement of official forces in the occupation and subsequent dismantling of her home, after her displacement, was explored. 233. The context of insecurity in which these human rights defenders operated is confirmed by the fact that precautionary measures were granted on October 22, 2004 by the IACHR on behalf of Mrs. Naranjo and Mosquera as a result of their community organization endeavors, and the Court granted provisional measures on July 5, 2006. It is important to highlight that both the IACHR and the Court have repeatedly ruled on the ineffectiveness of the mechanisms of protection provided to the women human rights defenders in the context of said measures, with some of their next of kin even being murdered.304 234. The IACHR thus concludes this section expressing its concern over the chilling effect of the State’s failure to protect, in this instance, the women who work to defend human rights in Comuna 13. Statements from Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas in the case file indicate that they were forced to abandon their community and organizational work permanently due to their fear of accusations, persecution and other acts of violence and, as will be thoroughly discussed later in this report, they remain in a situation of displacement, in precarious economic circumstances.305 Such declarations also allude to the extension of these violations to the family members of the mentioned defenders, including having joined the forced displacement, a radical and traumatic change in their life project, and the interruption of their work and studies, an aspect which will be analyzed in detail in later sections of this report.306 235. The IACHR reiterates the need to legitimize and protect the actions of women human rights defenders in the face of the threat to their existence and work by the actors in the Colombian armed conflict, including the Armed Forces and National Police, and their positive obligation to create the structural conditions necessary for them to be able to do their work in this known context of risk. 236. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission finds that the right to personal integrity of Miryam Eugenia Rua Figueroa and Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, as set forth in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, was violated in the present case. 303 Annex 16. Complaint to the Office of the Ombudsperson of July 18, 2003, on inter-urban displacement and security of Luz Dary Ospina B. and her family; Annex 17. Complaint to the Departmental Prosecutor, City of Medellín, July 18, 2003, or intra-urban displacement and security of Luz Dary Ospina B. and her family. 304 See, for example, IACHR, Press Release, IACHR condemns continued threats and murders directed against human rights defenders and their families in Colombia, March 7, 2011; Decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, Colombia September 22, 2006, January 31, 2008; November 25, 2010; and March 4, 2011. 305 Annexes 3 and 15. Statements from Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas received by the GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012. 306 Annexes 3 and 15. Statements from Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas received by the GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 27, 2012.