- 60 - 169. Regarding article 16 of the Convention, the Commission considered that the execution of Senator Cepeda “revealed the failure to ensure [the] right to associate freely […] without fear,” owing to the notorious pattern of violence against the members of the UP; the absence of effective measures of prevention, and the failure to completely clarify the crimes that had been committed. The representatives alleged the violation of Articles 13, 16 and 23 of the Convention jointly, because Senator Cepeda Vargas exercised these rights continuously, simultaneously and in an interrelated manner, so that the violation of these rights represented an attack on the values of the democratic system; because he was murdered to silence his voice and his political activities; and because his death, prevented him from being a member of the UP and curtailed his possibility of continuing to make a contribution towards achieving the political objectives of this party. When challenging the alleged violation of the right of association, the State indicated that the mere membership of the victim in a political party did not imply this violation, and that the Commission and the representatives had tried to unduly extend its acknowledgement of responsibility to include harming the political rights and freedom of expression of Senator Manuel Cepeda as an individual, in order to exempt themselves from any need to prove the violation. In this regard, it asked that the Court “declare that this violation was subsumed in the harm to the political rights.” Finally the State indicated that the only purpose of including a social dimension in the analysis would be to incorporate new victims in the proceedings, and that the loss of legal status of the UP resulted from a failure to comply with the legal and constitutional requirements. 170. As regards the violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the Court has already verified that public officials made statements concerning the alleged connections between the UP and the FARC (supra paras. 85 to 87). However, when acknowledging the violation of Mr. Cepeda’s right to protection of his honor and dignity, the State declared that it made the acknowledgement because it had failed to protect him from threats related to statements made by various private individuals, organizations and public officials, for which it alleged that it was not responsible. In relation to the failure to take preventive measures with regard to the right to life, the Court has already indicated that public officials could not ignore the rights of Senator Cepeda Vargas in their statements, since they were guarantors of those rights.245 Therefore, the Court does not need to weigh the Senator’s right to honor and dignity against the freedom of expression of other officials or other sectors of society, as the State proposes. Consequently, the Court takes note of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in this regard. 171. Although each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope, it sometimes becomes necessary to analyze them together, owing to the specific circumstances of the case or the necessary interrelation among certain rights, in order to make an appropriate assessment of the possible violations and their consequences. In the instant case, the Court will examine the dispute that subsists concerning the alleged violation of political rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of association together, in the understanding that these rights are of fundamental importance under the inter-American system, because they are closely interrelated and, together, make democracy possible.246 Additionally, Senator Cepeda Vargas was, 245 Cf. Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 131; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 151, and Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 49, para. 139. 246 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra note 28, para. 140. Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, “under the Constitution and under the doctrine of human rights, the freedoms of expression, assembly and association form a trilogy of personal freedoms that are also a pre-requisite for political rights.” Judgment C-