139. The investigation of Carvajal Carvajal’s murder pointed to individuals who wielded power in the region, such as the head of the local government, local businessmen with alleged ties to drug trafficking and money laundering, the guerrillas, and gangs of common criminals. As stated in the case file, the investigation took place amidst a climate of serious fear among the residents of Pitalito and among those who cooperated to establish the facts of the case. It bears emphasizing that at the time the crime was committed the Colombian people who lived in regions like Pitalito were subjected to patterns of violence linked to the armed conflict, as well as to drug trafficking and abuses of government power, among other things. 140. In view of the above, and as provided by law, the investigation was transferred from the local prosecutor’s office to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Bogotá. Later, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Colombia ordered the reassignment of the investigation to the National Unit of Human Rights Prosecutors headquartered in Bogotá. While this measure was meant to encourage the independence of the bodies in charge of the investigation, it was insufficient to protect the witnesses and other individuals involved in the investigation in view of the threats and other forms of intimidation, and thus it failed to prevent the obstruction of the investigation in this particular case. 141. It is clear from the established facts that there were serious and repeated threats and acts of intimidation against the residents of Pitalito, witnesses, and relatives of the journalist Nelson Carvajal’s during the investigation. The State learned of these threats and had the obligation to take all necessary protection and investigation measures to guarantee the full effectiveness of the proceedings. 142. The case file also shows that the investigating authorities observed that, “given the lack of protection,” several individuals in Pitalito did not want to give their names when they gave statements, “because of the fear that exists in the area.” This fear also affected the personnel in charge of intelligence work in Pitalito who, according to the regional authorities, “did not sign any documents for security reasons”. 143. During the pretrial phase of the criminal proceeding, because of her actions pushing for the investigation, the victim’s sister Judith Carvajal was the victim of a criminal complaint filed by the government official implicated in the murder. The complaint alleged criminal defamation [calumnia e injuria], and was pending for a year, even though it lacked clear grounds. Furthermore, the record reflects that she received death threats on several occasions and was subject to surveillance by unidentified men who approached her person and her home with extremely intimidating messages. These threats increased upon the arrest in 1999 of the individuals accused of the masterminding the crime. Her statements indicate that on one occasion she was personally told that there was a direct order from the men implicated in Nelson Carvajal’s murder to kill her. Judith Carvajal reported these threats to the authorities. 144. Judith Carvajal reportedly went into the Victim and Witness Protection Program of the Office of the Prosecutor General in early 1999. Nevertheless, there is no proof in the case file that she did in fact receive protection. In spite of her entry into the Protection Program, given the absence of concrete and effective measures of protection, Judith Carvajal had to leave Pitalito and reside temporarily in another part of the country, which she also reported to the Office of the Prosecutor General in order for it to conduct the respective investigations. 145. In October 1999, Judith Carvajal left the country because of the threats she was receiving from “persons implicated in the investigation” of her brother Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s death. Judith Carvajal informed the authorities of her departure and of the risks her family was facing. The petitioner indicated— and the State did not dispute the fact—that she asked “the Prosecutor’s Office for protection for [her] family, which is in the process of leaving Pitalito for fear that something might happen to them.” 146. The Commission notes that the State did not provide evidence of having taken any measures to protect the relatives who were threatened during the investigation. In particular, it notes that there is nothing in the case file to indicate that any kind of investigation was conducted to determine the origin of the reported threats and to punish those responsible for them, which exacerbates the context of intimidation and defenselessness and encourages the concealment of the facts.