168. To determine whether this is being done in a particular case, the Court indicated that it is necessary to examine “nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to authorize, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law.”580 313. In the instant case, the IACHR has determined that the State, through the DAS, created a special strategic intelligence group for purposes of: (i) monitoring CAJAR members’ work activities; (ii) intercepting their landline and cell phone calls and their e-mails; (iii) preparing personal files on each member, which included personal data, names of their relatives, photos, and daily activities. 314. The Commission notes that the State did not dispute said information, so it is obvious that there was interference in the alleged victims’ right to private life. 315. In this case the IACHR observes that the State did not present information on whether it had adopted legislation providing for the State’s surveillance and monitoring of CAJAR members. The Commission notes that a special strategic intelligence group was created under the DAS, and based on the documents provided by the parties, the safeguards referred to above were not set forth under any law. 316. The IACHR takes note of the fact that in 2011, the same year the DAS was dismantled, the Colombian State passed an Intelligence and Counter-intelligence Law. In its 2013 country report, the Commission recalled that the UN High Commissioner had highlighted the need to adopt comprehensive reform measures that included a process for updating, rectifying, annulling, or keeping confidential personal information in intelligence files, as well as to ensure that public servants who reported abuses or refused to carry out illegal orders were protected.581 In addition, the High Commissioner indicated that military intelligence services needed a public set of regulations that framed and delimited their actions, and that the Office of the Procurator General should go further in carrying out its preventive and disciplinary functions.582 317. Furthermore, bearing in mind the 2013 report of the then UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the IACHR takes note of the fact that surveillance activities carried out by the Colombian State were not subject to judicial oversight. Nothing was established as to the scope and duration of possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to authorize and supervise them, or the kind of redress set forth under domestic legislation. 318. In light of the foregoing, the Commission deems that the State did not meet the requirement of legality to conduct monitoring and surveillance of CAJAR members. As for the justification for said interference, the State did not invoke any legitimate purpose for these intelligence activities directed at CAJAR members, nor did it present any element that would allow for an analysis of the suitability, need, and proportionality of such measures in light of a potentially legitimate purpose. On the contrary, by noting that it had adopted measures to investigate and thus determine the corresponding responsibilities, the State implicitly recognized the illegitimate and unlawful nature of the DAS intelligence activities analyzed herein. The IACHR considers that this is sufficient to conclude that these activities were illegal and arbitrary and therefore contrary to the right set forth under Article 11 of the Convention. 319. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Stated violated the right provided for in Article 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons that belonged to CAJAR at the time these intelligence activities were carried out. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Weber and Saravia v. Germany. Application no. 54934/00. Decision as to the admissibility of 29 June 2006. Para. 106. 581 IACHR, Report on Colombia, December 31, 2013, paragraph 1186. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/colombiatruth-justice-reparation.pdf 582 IACHR, Report on Colombia, December 31, 2013, paragraph 1186. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/colombiatruth-justice-reparation.pdf 580 62