70 necessary, or that it had some nexus with the proclamation of internal unrest. The proven facts before the IACHR show that the detention of Mrs. Mosquera, Naranjo and Yarce was based on an “absolute void of evidence” and on proof which is not permitted under the law; as established under a decision issued by the Prosecuting Attorney in charge of the case on November 21, 2002.317 The circumstances of their detention were in overt violation of the precepts set forth under subsections 1 and 3 of Article 7 of the American Convention. 245. The IACHR also expresses its concern over the proven fact that Ms. Naranjo, Mosquera and Rúa were detained four days after holding a meeting with the Secretary of the Municipal Government, in which they reported murders committed by paramilitary groups in locations of the Comuna which were heavily controlled by the army.318 The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner identified arbitrary detentions of civilians, as part of the pattern of human rights violations that Operation Orion entailed, which took place at the same time as these incidents.319 246. The IACHR notes that the detention of a human rights defender is incompatible with standards of international law when it is conducted without fulfilling the requirements and following the formal procedures as established by law. Moreover, the IACHR reiterates that the illegal and arbitrary detention of a particular human rights defender is an especially serious act, and infringes several rights, including the right to personal integrity contained in Article 5.1 of the American Convention.320 247. An illegal and arbitrary detention generates different types of psychological harm, which manifest themselves through anxiety, fear, insecurity, stigmatization, stress, and frustration of the defender involved,321 and can become a tool of direct harassment of said defender compromising her mental and emotional integrity,322 and that of her next of kin. The detention of a women human rights defender does not only have a chilling effect on her work but also brings her work to a standstill inasmuch as her time, energy and resources have to be focused on her own defense.323 As for the collective impact, arbitrary detention and the criminalization of the work of a defender may in turn result in collective stigmatization and send an intimidating message to any individuals who intended to report violations, or have lodged complaints for human rights violations.324 317 Annex 35. Copy of the decision issued by the Office of the Prosecutor Delegate before the Criminal Circuit Courts of Medellin dated November 21, 2002, Annex to the Colombian State’s Note DH. GOI No. 12442-0552 dated March 15, 2007, and the Observations of the petitioners with reference to the matter of Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, March 25, 2010. 318 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Mrs. Rhadika Coomaraswamy, Visit to Colombia, January 14, 2003, par. 35; Night and Fog: an Overview of Human Rights and Political Violence in Colombia, Case Type No. 2: Comuna 13, Data Bases of Political Violence CINEP and Justice and Peace, Bogota, May 2003, pg. 31. 319 United Nations, Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Colombia, Annual Report 2002, February 24, 2003, par. 37. 320 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2012), pars. 118-119. 321 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), par. 119. 322 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, February 29, 1999, par. 43. Also see on this topic IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru. Chapter III Administration of Justice and Rule of Law, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, June 2, 2000, par. 149. 323 IACHR Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), par. 76. 324 IACHR Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), par. 79.