160. The organs of the inter-American system of human rights protection have set forth, in extensive case law and doctrine, that the right to freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, ensure the dissemination of information and ideas, including those resulting unpleasant for the State or any sector of the population.291 Also, they have recognized that the right to freedom of association guarantees freedom of association for political purposes.292 In this regard, it has been stated that a violation of the right to life or personal integrity attributable to the State may cause, in turn, a violation of the rights to freedom of expression and association, when that violation was due to the legitimate exercise of such rights.293 161. Particularly, the IACHR has stated that the murder of journalists and members of the media due to their professional duties is the most extreme form of censorship. As the Inter-American Court has observed, "journalism can only be exercised freely when those who carry out this work are not victims of threats or physical, mental or moral attacks or other acts of harassment." Such actions not only violate in a particularly drastic way the freedom of thought and expression of the person concerned, but also affect the collective dimension of this right. Acts of violence committed against journalists violate their right to express and impart ideas, opinions and information, and also violate the rights of citizens and society in general to seek and receive information and ideas of any kind. 294 In that sense, they are “an attack against the principles of transparency and accountability, as well as the right to hold opinions and to participate in public debates, which are essential for democracy.” 162. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has stressed that “opposition voices are essential in a democratic society; without them it is not possible to reach agreements that satisfy the different visions that prevail in society.”295 In this sense, it states that the “extrajudicial execution of an opponent for political reasons not only entails the violation of several human rights, but also breaches the principles upon which the rule of law is based, and directly violates the democratic system, inasmuch as it results from a failure to ensure that the different authorities abide by their obligation to protect nationally and internationally recognized human rights, and submit to the domestic organs that guarantee the observance of those rights.”296 163. The body of evidence has shown that the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of journalist Vladimir Herzog were motivated by his alleged activism in a cell of PCB journalists, and his work as editor-in-chief at the public television station TV Cultura, a medium accused of spreading communist propaganda. (supra párr. 74 and 75) As such, the actions of the State sought precisely to prevent his political activism and journalism, and were expressed in illegitimate restrictions of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association for political purposes. In the words of the Inter-American Court, these actions directly undermine the rule of law and openly contradict fundamental principles of the democratic system. 164. The Commission has referred to the chilling effect that crimes against journalists have on other media professionals and citizens in general seeking to expose abuses of power and illicit acts of any 291 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Inter-American Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom Of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 179; I/A Court H.R. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Serie C No. 194; 292 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Serie C No. 213. 293 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Serie C No. 167, para. 147; I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Serie C No. 248. Paras. 142-149; I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Serie C No. 213. 294 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. 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. 295 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Serie C No. 213. 296 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Serie C No. 213. 38