The high level of impunity without question contributes to the continuing attacks on journalists. Not only does it allow attackers to continue in their efforts to intimidate journalists, but it also signals to armed groups, paramilitaries and State officials that journalists do not deserve protection. Impunity also reinforces the culture of self-censorship and internal displacement of journalists. When they stop investigating certain actors or certain areas for fear of reprisals, corruption and violence continue unabated. 322 152. From the foregoing derives a State duty to develop a comprehensive policy for protecting journalists, as States must guarantee that journalists who work in the media enjoy the protection and independence necessary to perform their functions fully, 323 given that 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. 324 In this case, it has been proven that the State did not act with the due diligence necessary to investigate the facts of May 25, 2000, or the threats against Ms. Bedoya before and after that date. 153. In view of what has been established in the above paragraphs, together with the State’s partial recognition of international responsibility—and, in particular, its explicit acknowledgment of the violation of Articles 5, 11, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that treaty, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT—the Court concludes that the failure to investigate the threats Ms. Bedoya has been receiving since at least 1999 when they were brought to the attention of the State constituted a violation of articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with articles 1(1), 5(1), 11, and 13 thereof, to the detriment of Jineth Bedoya. Likewise, in view of the circumstances in which these violations took place and the State’s partial recognition of international responsibility in this regard, the Court concludes that the foregoing also amounted to violation of articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT. Lastly, and also in view of the State’s recognition of responsibility, the Court concludes that the failure to investigate the attack on Ms. Bedoya in which her mother, Ms. Luz Nelly Lima, was injured, amounted to a violation of articles 5, 11, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Luz Nelly Lima. b.3 Other violations of the American Convention alleged by the representatives 154. Regarding the representatives’ argument that the aforementioned facts also entailed a violation of the right to defend human rights, the Court finds that the duty to guarantee this right is sufficiently addressed in the analysis carried out in this section through the rights declared violated. 325 VIII - 3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF MS. LUZ NELLY LIMA, MOTHER OF JINETH BEDOYA LIMA 326 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 155. The Commission observed that the absence of a diligent investigation impacted the psychological and moral integrity of Ms. Bedoya's mother, in addition to the suffering and anguish 322 Cf. Expert opinion of Michel Forst given before a notary public on March 5, 2021 (evidence file, folio 40075). Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 119. 323 324 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, supra, para. 209. Cf. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 193. 325 326 Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 56