62 discusses in this report in later sections the scope of state responsibility towards the actions of private actors which threaten the integrity, life and work of women’s rights defenders in Colombia working in zones affected by the armed conflict (see paragraphs below 252-264; 279-282; 312-321; 322-332). 219. In this sense, the State’s duty to prevent and protect takes on special meaning in the case of women human rights defenders. In addition to the risk inherent to the work of human rights defense is the history of discrimination that women have suffered based on their sex, stemming from stereotyped concepts and sociocultural patterns of behavior that have promoted their treatment as inferiors.280 This history of discrimination has increasingly exposed them, in certain contexts, to acts of violence, threats, harassment, and other types of violations of their human rights.281 The IACHR has established how women human rights defenders continue in several countries of the hemisphere, including Colombia, being exposed to a special situation of risk of suffering human rights violations compared to other groups of defenders.282 220. Accordingly, the inherent link between discrimination and violence against women is relevant to the scope of the duty of protection of a State with respect to the activities of women human rights defenders, and entails special obligations of prevention for the same. When a State does not adopt reasonable measures to prevent acts of violence against women human rights defenders, or remedy a known context of discrimination that promotes the repetition of these acts, not only does it violate the right to humane treatment, but also its obligation not to discriminate against women, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.283 221. This duty of prevention and response applicable to the State is not limited to providing material means to the women human rights defenders affected in order to protect their personal integrity, or to ensure that its agents not interfere in the full exercise of their human rights.284 It also entails the duty to act on the structural causes that affect their security285 with the aim of creating the conditions necessary for the effective enjoyment of the rights established in the American Convention.286 For the State it entails the obligation to take into account specific risks that women human rights defenders face in a given context in adopting measures to protect their personal integrity 280 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, para. 283. 281 See in general, IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., United States, July 21, 2011, para. 110; IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 28/07, Cases 12,496-12,498, Claudia Ivette González et al. (Mexico), March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 54/01, Case 12,051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), IACHR Annual Report 2001; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007); I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205. 282 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, para. 283. 283 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., United States, July 21, 2011, para. 120. 284 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), para. 42; 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, para. 47. 285 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, para. 47. 286 para. 111. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134,