54 WITH REGARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS 185. The representatives indicated that “[h]uman rights defenders and human rights organizations, regardless of whether they are individualized by name, are indirect victims of the murder of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, owing to the violation of their rights to integrity, freedom of expression and thought, and freedom of association. Indeed, an act of such gravity and social importance, combined with repeated State actions that attempt to harm the foundations of the activity of human rights defense, generates fear and a general feeling of insecurity.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, throughout the proceedings, the representatives asked for recognition “that the murder of a leader of the caliber and abilities of Jesús María Valle entails an offense against the whole community of human rights defenders, deters them from continuing to denounce such serious acts as those revealed by Jesús María [Valle Jaramillo,] and discourages new members from joining their ranks, owing to the level of danger attached to this activity.” 186. The Commission did not allege that human rights defenders were victims in the instant case. 187. The State contested “the attempt of the representatives to include human rights defenders as new victims, based on the fact that: (i) human rights defenders were not included as victims in the proceedings before the [Commission] and, therefore, should not be considered as victims by the Court, and (ii) a contentious case is not an actio popularis.” In addition, the State affirmed that “in Colombia, the State does not encourage an environment of harassment, persecution, or violation of the rights of human rights defenders or the organizations of which they are members. To the contrary, the State has adopted different measures to protect their lives and their personal integrity, to guarantee the rights of social organizations, and to promote their participation in the development of public policies.” 188. This Court’s case law has stated that the alleged victims must be indicated in the application and in the Commission’s Report on merits under Article 50 of the Convention. According to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission and not the Court to identify the victims in a case before the Court with precision and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.137 189. In this regard, the Court observes that the Commission did not include “human rights defenders” as alleged victims in its application or in its Report under Article 50 of the Convention, even though it did make general references to them in its different briefs when stating its position concerning the situation of human rights defenders in Colombia. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 136 Article 16 establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. 2. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. 3. The provisions of this article do not bar the imposition of legal restrictions, including even deprivation of the exercise of the right of association, on members of the armed forces and the police. 137 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 98; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 126, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 165.