86. In crimes against human rights defenders specifically, the Court has noted that States have a duty to investigate, seriously and effectively, any violations committed against them, to combat impunity, 146 and to ensure impartial, prompt, and authoritative justice, and that this entails an exhaustive search for all the information in order to design and carry out an investigation that involves the proper analysis of the different hypotheses of responsibility, by act or omission, at different levels, exploring all the pertinent lines of investigation to identify those responsible. 147 Consequently, when confronted with indications or allegations that a specific act against a human rights defender could be based precisely on their work defending and promoting human rights, the investigating authorities should take into account the context of the facts and their activities to identify the interests that could have been affected by those activities, in order to establish and exhaust the lines of investigation that take into account their work, determine the reason for the crime, and identify the perpetrators. 148 87. Due to the fundamental role of human rights defenders in promoting and protecting human rights in their day-to-day work, the Court has recognized the enhanced obligation of due diligence in the investigation of their deaths. 149 This obligation involves actions such as documenting the work of the defender, the role he or she played in the community and environment, the agenda he or she was implementing, and the region in which he or she worked, using methodological tools such as researching similar cases to identify systematic patterns. 150 88. The Court reiterates that compliance with the State’s duty to create the necessary conditions for the effective exercise and enjoyment of the rights established in the Convention is intrinsically linked to the protection and recognition of the importance of the role played by human rights defenders, 151 whose work is fundamental to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. The Court also recalls that the activities of monitoring, denunciation, and education that human rights defenders perform make an essential contribution to respect for human rights, because they act as guarantors against impunity. Thus, they complement the role, not only of the States, but also of the interAmerican human rights system as a whole. 152 In this regard, the Court has already stressed the need to eradicate impunity in cases of violence against human rights defenders, because this is essential to ensure that they may perform their task freely in a safe environment. 153 89. The Court stresses that violence against human rights defenders has a chilling effect, 154 especially when the crimes go unpunished. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the threats and attempts on the safety and life of human rights defenders and the impunity of those responsible for such actions are particularly grave because they have an impact that is not only individual, but also collective. When such things happen, society is prevented from learning the truth about whether the rights of persons are being respected or violated within the jurisdiction of a given State. 155 146 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 100. 147 Cf. Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 47, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 100. 148 Cf. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 131, 216, and 219, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 100. 149 Cf. Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 104. 150 Cf. Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 104. Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 74, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 100. 151 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 88 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 100. 152 153 Cf. Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 135. Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 96, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 69. 154 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 76, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 96. 155 26