members of the Grupo Mutual de Apoyo.” 268 In addition, the fourth section of the Diario Militar includes the GAM in a list entitled “List of ‘Front’ Organizations at the service of the subversion.” 269 In addition, in 1985, the then Head of State declared on television that “the GAM was being manipulated by the subversion,” and therefore “measures would be taken to counter it and that, henceforth, no more demonstrations would be tolerated” 270 (supra para. 85). In the Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, the Inter-American Commission underscored that “immediately after these declarations, the GAM began to be severely harassed,” and also reported that, the following month two leaders of GAM and the next of kin of one of them had been killed. 271 181. The foregoing reveals the Government’s perception of the GAM in 1984 and 1985. However, the Court has verified that, during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala, the concept of “internal enemy,” against who the State’s counterinsurgency actions were addressed, included “those who for any reason were not in favor of the established regime” (supra para. 51). Thus, organizations that sought justice also began to be considered “internal enemies” and, consequently, their members were targets of repression, denigration, intimidation, threats, and human rights violations. In this regard, the CEH indicated that “[f]aced with the non-conformist nature of these organizations, the Army and those in power responded with intimidating actions that included public accusations of belonging to the guerrilla movement or, in extreme cases, the murder and disappearance of their members.” 272 According to the CEH, the GAM was one of the organizations most affected. 273 182. The Court stresses that, according to the CEH, between 1989 and 1993, the situation of danger and persecution against the members of the GAM continued. In particular, the CEH report mentions that, over that period, three GAM activists were kidnapped or disappeared, and five more were kidnapped and murdered. Also, in 1989, among other attacks, a bomb exploded outside the GAM offices and, on October 27 and 29, 1993, the GAM offices were searched (supra para. 86) Consequently, it is clear that the dangerous situation of the members of the GAM persisted after the Court’s jurisdiction had been recognized, at least until 1993. The intimidating or unsettling effect of this context for both Mrs. Montenegro and Mrs. García, both founding members of the GAM, is evident to the Court. In addition, Mrs. Montenegro received death threats and was under surveillance. The Court considers that this dangerous situation represented a de facto restriction of the right to freedom of association. Thus, the Court does not consider admissible the State's argument that the freedom of association of Mrs. Montenegro and Mrs. García was not violated because, in 1984, they were able to found the GAM. Furthermore, the Court recalls that it is the State’s obligation not only to create the legal and formal conditions, but also to ensure the factual conditions in which human rights defenders can perform their work freely. Therefore, the Court finds that the State did not provide the necessary conditions or 268 Cf. Diario Militar, supra, third section, and La autenticidad del Diario Militar, a la luz de los documentos hisóricos de la Policía Nacional, supra, folios 20 and 21. 269 Cf. Diario Militar, supra, fourth section. 270 Similarly, according to the CEH, on February 2, 1985, the then Head of State “accused the members of the GAM of being manipulated by subversives and threatened to take reprisals. When a journalist asked him what form these would take, he answered: ‘you’ll know when you see them,’ La Palabra, March 22, 1985, p. 15.” CEH, supra, volume IV, p. 236, footnote 553. 271 Cf. IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, 1985, supra, chapter II, paras. 93 and 95. 272 CEH, supra, volume IV, pp. 229, para. 4511. 273 Cf. CEH, supra, volume IV, pp. 229 and 236, paras. 4512 and 4528. 64