112. The Inter-American Commission has recognized that the murder of journalists or media workers for the practice of their profession is the most extreme form of censorship.122 113. It is an undisputed fact in this case that on April 16, 1998, journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal was murdered in the city of Pitalito and that, as of the date of issue of this report—sixteen years later—the circumstances of the crime have not been established by a court of law and the perpetrators have not been convicted. During those years, the national authorities have weighed different theories regarding the masterminding of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s murder, implicating the mayor of Pitalito, local businessmen, members of the departmental legislature of Huila, the guerrillas, , and gangs of common criminals. 114. The Commission notes that the petitioner did not allege in this case that the authorities knew or should have known that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s life was in particular danger and therefore failed to meet its duty to protect the journalist’s life.123 Rather, the petitioner’s argument focuses on state responsibility for the violation of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s rights to life and freedom of expression, as well as the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of the journalist’s relatives, because of the lack of due diligence in the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the alleged victim’s murder which, according to the petitioner, was based on the practice of his profession. 115. The State, for its part, maintained that Carvajal Carvajal’s murder was committed not by state agents but by private individuals, and asserted that it had taken all necessary measures to investigate the facts. Colombia further asserted that the violent death of a journalist does not “automatically entail the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression,” and that, in any case, the domestic legal proceedings did not provide “certainty with respect to whether Mr. Carvajal’s death was directly related to his journalistic work.” Therefore, it contested the alleged international responsibility of the State for the acts at issue in this case. 116. The Commission must examine then whether the State’s actions constitute a violation of the rights to life and freedom of expression with respect to Nelson Carvajal Carvajal, and of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection with respect to his relatives. 1. Standards on the duty to investigate crimes committed against journalists on account of the exercise of their right to freedom of expression 117. The Inter-American Court has established that in cases of extrajudicial, unlawful, arbitrary, or summary executions, a State’s authorities must open, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, once they have knowledge of the act,124 regardless of whether it was committed by State agents or by private individuals. In cases of violent death, carrying out an effective investigation is “a fundamental element essential for the protection of the rights that are affected in these situations.”125 122 IACHR. 2013 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 1; IACHR. Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Special Study on the Status of Investigations into the Murder of Journalists during the 1995-2005 Period for Reasons That May Be Related to Their Work in Journalism. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131. Doc. 35. March 8, 2008. Presentation; IACHR. Report No. 37/10. March 17, 2010. Case 12.308. Manoel Leal de Oliveira (Brazil). Para. 97; United Nations General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns. A/HRC/20/22. April 10, 2012. Para. 21. 123 In this case, the Commission notes that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s personal safety and life were at risk prior to his murder; nevertheless, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the State had knowledge of this situation or that it should have known about this risk due to special circumstances. 124 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. para. 143; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 145. 125 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196. Para. 75.