Bedoya received had on her right to freedom of expression. 149. The Court has already referred in this judgment to the content of the right to freedom of expression protected by Article 13 of the American Convention, as well as to the relevance of the exercise of journalism and its connection with that right (supra paras. 106 and 107). The Court has also recognized the possibility of de facto situations in which those who exercise freedom of expression will find themselves at greater risk or vulnerability. Under these circumstances, States have an obligation to refrain from actions that facilitate or increase danger and, when applicable, adopt reasonable and necessary measures to prevent violations or to protect the rights of those at risk. 317 150. This means that States have an obligation to adopt all the measures necessary to not only protect journalists from these risks, but also to diligently investigate any act of aggression against them. 318 Furthermore, prevention of these violations is necessary to ensure the crimes committed against journalists, especially those that endanger their lives and/or physical integrity, do not remain in impunity. As previously noted, it is impunity that has both a direct effect on the victim or victims of the attacks, and a social impact. This impact is also differentiated by gender. Expert witness Kravetz noted as much at the hearing when she indicated that, in this particular case, “the fact that a journalist—especially a highly visible journalist—could recieve threats that then go unpunished sends a message discouraging other journalists and human rights defenders in relation to their work, leading them to limit themselves in the exercise of their work.” 319 The foregoing is also supported by the statement made by Ms. Bedoya, who in the hearing held before this Court referred to the fact that “8 out of 10 women journalists in Colombia decide to self-censor or quit their sources and their work so as not to become victims of violence.” 320 151. Additionally, not only does impunity for attacks on journalists have a chilling effect on the victims and society, it is joined by an environment that enables the perpetrators of such attacks. In the words of the Court, “impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenseless of victims and their relatives.” 321 In this regard, expert Michel Forst established that: 317 Cf. Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 190. This stance is complimented by that of the IACHR, which is that countries with a “systematic and grave structural situation of violence against journalists and media workers” must establish special mechanisms of protection. Cf. IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, “Violence Against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators,” 2013, para. 62, available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/reports/2014_04_22_violence_web.pdf. 318 In this regard, expert witness Daniela Kravetz explained the importance of the diligent investigation of the threats in conjunction with the adoption of protection measures and established that "justice officials must comply with their due diligence obligations in good faith and without discrimination, and guarantee the protection and safety of people who have been the subject of threats. Cfr. Expert opinion from Daniela Kravetz given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions and submitted in writing (merits file, folio 1104). 319 Cf. Expert opinion from Daniela Kravetz given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions. Likewise, expert witness Juan Méndez explained the particular impact that threats have on women journalists and human rights defenders and stated that they "are particularly at risk of being threatened because of their reporting. Due to their visibility, there are attempts to silence them and targeted attacks aimed at discouraging broader dissent.” Cfr. Expert opinion rendered before a notary public by Juan E. Méndez (evidence file, folio 40025). Cf. Statement from Jineth Bedoya Lima given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions. Specifically, Ms. Bedoya indicated that these figures date “to 2011, since 2009 I have led the organization No es Hora de Callar, which is focused on documenting cases of gender-based violence, both general genderbased violence and stigmatization and violence against women journalists.” 320 321 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, supra, para. 126, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 131. 55