that “as a result of a lack of diligent investigation, the threats continue to go unpunished.” They also indicated that these threats qualified as torture and that the State was responsible for them. In this regard, they specified that “the continuation of the threats over more than two decades in complete impunity amounts to acts of torture against the victims, as they have had serious impacts on the mental integrity of the victims and were carried out with the intention of causing harm to, silencing, and intimidating” Ms. Bedoya. They therefore concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity protected by Article 5 of the American Convention and the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection contained in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in accordance with the duties set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as for the violation of articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. Additionally, they indicated that these facts also represented a violation of Ms. Bedoya's right to freedom of expression, since the threats made against her over the years "have also been aimed at silencing her voice" and the State has to this point taken a stance of “omission,” which prevented Ms. Bedoya from practicing journalism safely over the last 20 years, a time during which she has been exposed to "constant threats, risking her life and integrity for the sole fact of practicing journalism.” They additionally argued that the State was responsible for the violation of Ms. Bedoya's right to defend human rights, since all the facts suffered by Ms. Bedoya took place as a result of the human rights defense work that she was doing and continues to do, amounting to violation of Articles 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with breach of the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 124. The State, for its part, recognized the lack of due diligence in the investigation of threats against Ms. Bedoya from the moment it became aware of them, which included the lack of a specific investigation into the attack on Ms. Bedoya and her mother on May 27, 1999. B. Considerations of the Court b.1 Regarding the facts of May 25, 2000 b.1.1 Lack of due diligence 125. The Court has established that, under the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25). Such remedies must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 265 126. The Court also finds that, when investigating incidents of violence against women journalists, the duty of due diligence must be subjected to strict scrutiny for two reasons. First, because the States have a positive obligation to guarantee freedom of expression and to protect people who, because of their profession, are in a special situation of risk when exercising this right.266 Second, because this duty also entails an enhanced standard of due diligence when it comes to preventing gender-based violence and protecting women from it. 267 This must be taken into account from the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 136. 265 266 The Court has emphasized that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone of the very existence of a democratic society,” such that “Without an effective guarantee of freedom of expression the democratic systems is weakened and there is a breakdown of pluralism and tolerance; the mechanisms of control and complaint that citizens have may become inoperable and, indeed, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root.” Cfr. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 para. 70, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 174. 267 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 358, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, 47