Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.506 1.2. Obligations of the State vis-à-vis human rights defenders 266. The Commission considers that the States have the obligation to take positive actions to do away with environments that are hostile or dangerous to the work of human rights defenders.507 In this regard, States are required to create the conditions for eradicating violations by state agents or individuals such that people may freely engage in their work to defend and promote human rights.508 267. Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has emphasized that the actions States must take to protect human rights defense work include: “to provide the resources necessary for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats (…); to refrain from setting up hindrances that might make their work more difficult; and to conduct conscientious, effective investigations of violations against them, thus preventing impunity.”509 268. The aforementioned duties of the State, in addition to ensuring that human rights defenders can carry out their fundamental work, are also related to the enjoyment of several rights contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, such as the rights to personal integrity, freedom of expression, and freedom of association,510 which the State has the obligation to respect and protect. Such rights, taken together, allow for the free exercise of activities of defense and promotion of human rights. Thus, the attack of a human rights defender in retaliation for his or her activities can have the effect of violating those rights.511 269. The Commission recalls that the right to freedom of association has two dimensions: one individual and another social. On the one hand, this means “those who are protected by the Convention have (…) the right and freedom to associate freely with other persons, without the interference of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of the respective right.”512 On the other hand, the IACHR has indicated that individuals “enjoy the right and freedom to seek the common achievement of a licit goal, without pressure or interference that could alter or change their purpose.”513 270. Accordingly, the States must create legal and genuine conditions for the exercise thereof, which encompass, where relevant, the duties to prevent attacks against free association, including for human rights defense organizations.514 The Court indicated that such obligation remains even when it comes to respect for relations among individuals if a case so warrants.515 271. The IACHR has emphasized the broad content of the right to freedom of [thought and] expression and has examined the convention provision that protects it from several perspectives through which human beings relate to information.516 Both the IACHR and the Court have arrived at this broad interpretation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1. 507 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, paragraph 45. 508 United Nations General Assembly, A/65/223, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, 4 August 2010. 509 I/A Court H.R. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, paragraph 77. 510 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, paragraph 19. 511 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, paragraph 19. 512 I/A Court H.R. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, paragraph 69. 513 IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Case 12.775, Merits, Florentín Gudiel et al., Guatemala, March 21, 2012, paragraph 216. 514 I/A Court H.R. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, paragraph 271. 515 I/A Court H.R. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, paragraph 271. 516 IACHR, Case 12.442, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gabriela Perozo et al., Venezuela, April 12, 2007, paragraph 141. 506 51