protect those who exercise it, and to investigate violations of this freedom.”87 In this regard, the Court has established that States have the obligation to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to avoid any attempts on their life or safety; to refrain from imposing restrictions that would hinder the performance of their work, and to conduct a serious and effective investigation of any violations perpetrated against them, thereby combating impunity.88 101. Under the circumstances of this case, the analysis of a violation of freedom of association alleged by the representatives must be placed in the context of the relationship between the exercise of this right and the work of promoting and defending human rights. The Court accepted as proved that the agents who made the arrest inflicted extremely severe torture and ill-treatment while alluding to the fact that Mr. Fleury was a human rights defender (supra paras. 34 and 36), and that he was obliged to hide and flee for fear of reprisals by his assailants, after he had denounced and identified them (supra paras. 41 to 43). 102. In other words, there is sufficient evidence to consider that the violations perpetrated against Mr. Fleury were related to his work as a human rights defender so that, as a result of the facts of the case, he was unable to continue exercising his freedom of association with the organization for which he worked. Consequently, the State failed to guarantee his freedom of association in violation of Article 16 of the Convention. VII.6 ACCESS TO JUSTICE (RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION) A. Arguments 103. The Commission argued that, despite the complaints filed before the competent authorities by Mr. Fleury and other persons on his behalf, and the fact that he had identified those responsible before the authorities, “the HNP has not imposed any punishment on the agents” and the “police agents in question and the civilians connected to the police who allegedly participated in the ill-treatment of Mr. Fleury continue to work for the HNP.” In addition, no criminal investigation has been initiated based on the said complaints and those responsible for his arbitrary arrest and detention and the acts of torture he suffered have not been prosecuted or punished. In other words, the State has not provided Mr. Fleury or his family with a simple and prompt remedy or any other effective remedy before a competent judge or court to protect him from such acts, even though the State has the obligation to initiate ex officio and immediately an effective investigation that allows those responsible to be identified, prosecuted, and punished, when a complaint has been made or when there is a well-founded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed. The time that has passed (more than seven years) since the acts of torture were committed, without an investigation being carried out, exceeds the reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Lastly, the Commission argued that the facts prove that Mr. Fleury’s wife and children were also victims of the State’s inability 87 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 76, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 86, para. 144. 88 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, supra note 66, para. 77, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 86, para. 145. 28