27 and opinions, as well as the fullest access to information by society as a whole" 103 must be guaranteed. 127. The States also have the positive obligation to guarantee the right of journalists to freely seek and distribute information. The IACHR has explained that the authorities have the duty to guarantee the protection of journalists so they can fully exercise their right to the freedom of expression. 104 Journalists covering public order situations or armed conflicts must be the object of special protection and assistance on the State's part, and any attack or reprisal by the authorities as a result of the coverage of these issues constitutes a violation of the right to the freedom of thought and expression. 105 128. The Commission has also considered that in cases of attacks against journalists or social commentators, the absence of an investigation or the administration of justice by the State breaches its international responsibility. Freedom of expression must be protected in practice by effective judicial guarantees allowing for the investigation, punishment and compensation of abuses and crimes committed against journalists by reason of the exercise of their profession. 106 The absence of a full investigation by the State of the murder of a journalist is especially serious due to its impact on society. 107 This effect can only be avoided by decisive action on the part of the State to punish all the perpetrators; the State must send a clear and unambiguous message to society, in the sense that it will punish those who resort to violence to block the free exercise of the right to the freedom of expression. 108 103 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5 para.69. 104 IACHR. Report No 5/99, Case 11.739, Héctor Félix Miranda. Mexico. April 13, 1999; IACHR. Report No 130/99. Case 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza. Mexico. November 19, 1999; IACHR, Annual Report 2008, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5 rev. 1, February 25, 2009, Volume III, Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter IV, para.47. 105 Cf. IACHR, Inter-American Judicial Framework on the Right to the Freedom of Expression OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/RELE/INF. 2/09, December 30, 2009, paras. 193-195. 106 Cf. IACHR, Annual Report 2008, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5 rev. 1, February 25, 2009, Volume III, Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter IV, para.47. One of the first cases in this area was the case of the journalist Hugo Bustíos Saavedra, murdered in 1988 by a Peruvian military patrol while he was investigating two murders committed in the context of the internal conflict then affecting the country. In that case, the IACHR found that the State was responsible, inter alia, for the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, since the State had neglected to offer the necessary protection to the journalists it knew were present in the conflict zone. In addition, it understood that the acts of violence that occurred had prevented the free exercise of the right to the freedom of expression: (i) of the murdered journalist; (ii) of another commentator who had been injured by the same patrol; (iii) of the media and journalist community who were intimidated by these types of violent acts; and (iv) of course, of society in general who were deprived of knowing issues of the utmost importance with regard to the armed conflict. For the IACHR, journalists fulfill a fundamental role in situations of armed conflict, since, at a severe risk to themselves, they are able to offer to the public independent news on what is happening. As a result, it indicated that the State must provide them the highest protection possible for them to be able to carry on exercising their right to the freedom of expression, in such a way that society's right to be adequately informed is satisfied. Report Nº 38/97. Case of 10.548. Hugo Bustíos Saavedra. Peru. October 16, 1997. In subsequent cases, such as the case of the murdered journalist Héctor Félix Miranda, in Mexico, the IACHR was clear in pointing out that the only way to avoid the effects leading to the murder of a journalist and the failure by the State in fully investigating these acts, that leads to encouragement for the continued commission of these crimes (of chilling effects), is via rapid State action to try and punish those responsible. The same argument was sustained by the IACHR in the case of the murder of Víctor Manuel Oropeza. In this case, the IACHR found that the State was not directly responsible for the death of the journalist. However, on alleging that the latter had been the target of threats due to his publications, that there had been no efforts at protection, and that the investigation into his murder had been deficient, the IACHR found that the had been a violation of the victim's right to the freedom of expression. IACHR. Report Nº 5/99 Case of 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda. Mexico. April 13, 1999. 107 IACHR. Report No 5/99 Case of 11.739 Héctor Félix Miranda. Mexico. April 13, 1999, para.52. 108 IACHR. Report No 5/99 Case of 11.739 Héctor Félix Miranda. Mexico. April 13, 1999, para.52.