public hearing 33 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them and the purpose of this case. 34 VII FACTS 38. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted to it by the Inter-American Commission, the evidence in the body of evidence, and the partial recognition made by the State as regards: (i) the context in which these facts took place; (ii) the facts related to what happened on May 25, 2000 and the subsequent investigations and judicial proceedings; and (iii) the attacks and threats that Ms. Bedoya experienced and continues to experience, and the State actions carried out in this regard. A. Context 39. It is a public and well-known fact that, at the time of the facts in this case, there was an internal armed conflict in Colombia. 35 During that time period, for the purposes of this case, there was a context of violence directed specifically against journalists, as well as a context of sexual violence against women and, in particular, against women journalists. a.1 Context of violence against journalists at the time of the facts 40. The Commission, the representatives, and the State all made reference to a context of violence against journalists and gender-based violence at the time of the facts. The Court has ruled on the specific “context of special risk” that journalists faced in the 1990s in the context of the internal armed conflict. 36 The Court highlighted in the case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia that in 1998, Colombia was considered the "the most deadly place for the press in the world.” 37 Not surprisingly, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Americas stated in 1999 that “Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for the practice of journalism” and that “Colombia [was] the country with the largest number of journalists killed.” 38 During the processing of the case before the Commission, the State acknowledged that, indeed, there was "a context of violence against journalists at the time of the facts comprising this case." 39 Gómez, Leonor María Paulina Rivero Dueñas, Katherine Lorena Mesa Mayorga, Hugo Alexander Tovar Pérez, Ana María Reyes, Michel Forst, Juan E. Méndez, Martha Chinchilla, Jairo Cortés, Fernando Ruíz, Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, and Patricia Viseur Sellers. Statements were received from Jineth Bedoya Lima, Jorge Cardona, María del Pilar Ospina Garnica, Daniela Kravetz, and Clara Sandoval. 33 34 The subjects of these statements are set forth in the Order of the President of the Court of February 12, 2021. Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C. No. 134, para. 196; and Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, para. 76. 35 36 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 84. 37 Cf. Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, paras. 26 and 167. Cf. Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Americas, “Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Repudiates Murder of Colombian journalist,” Press Release no. 20/99, of December 8, 1999, available at: 38 https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=9&lID=1 39 Cf. Observations on the merits by the State of Colombia, April 5, 2016 (evidence file, folio 3290). 14