C) Freedom of association and of expression 178. The Inter-American Commission indicated that “following the disappearance of Edgar Fernando García, the right of his family members to denounce the incident was restricted, due to the constant threats and harassment they suffered.” It also considered that, “[a]lthough there is no evidence that the State formally restricted the exercise [of the] right to freedom of association [of Nineth Montenegro and Maria Emilia García, as members of the GAM], this freedom was severely restricted de facto as a result of the threats and harassment they received.” The representatives agreed with the Commission and indicated that, in response to the requests made by the GAM, they were criminalized and “some members of the board of directors of the Grupo de Apoyo Mutual were even killed.” Meanwhile, although the State indicated its “total opposition” to the supposed violation of freedom of expression and freedom of association of the members of Edgar Fernando García’s family in its answering brief, during the public hearing, and in its final written arguments, it expressed its partial acknowledgement of the supposed violation of these rights with regard to them. 265 179. The Court takes note of the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility (supra paras. 13.b.4 and 178). In this regard, the Court observes that, as a result of Edgar Fernando García’s forced disappearance, his mother and Mrs. Montenegro joined with other next of kin of disappeared persons and created the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo, seeking to obtain justice and in defense of human rights 266 (supra para. 83). Consequently, together with the findings already made on freedom of association (supra paras. 116 and 117), the alleged violation of this right in relation to the members of Edgar Fernando García’s family, must be analyzed in the context of the relationship that exists between the exercise of the said right and the work of promoting and defending human rights. In this regard, this Court has established that States have a duty to provide the means required for human rights defenders to perform their activities freely; to protect them when they are threatened in order to prevent attacks on their life and integrity; to refrain from imposing obstacles that hinder the their work, and to investigate, seriously and effectively, any violations committed against them, thereby combating impunity. 267 180. The Court emphasizes that, based on documents found in the Historical Archive of the National Police, evidence emerged that, in 1984, the National Police considered the members of the GAM to be “authentic enemies of the Military Government and of the security forces in general”; thus, the National Police considered that “it [was] necessary to proceed against them, acting in self-defense, in order to neutralize or eliminate them” (supra para. 84). Similarly, the third section of the Diario Militar bears a handwritten annotation “Apoyo Mutuo,” dated November 20, 1984, and lists Edgar Fernando García together with nine others, indicating, inter alia, his alias, presumed affiliation, date of kidnapping by unknown persons, and the name of his wife and mother. The report of the Peace Secretariat explained that this section listed individuals “whose families were 265 The State's initial opposition was based on the fact that the members of Mr. García’s family had been able to found the GAM and to denounce the events in different media, so that, in its opinion, their right to freedom of association had not been violated. Also, in its answering brief, the State emphasized that Alejandra García Montenegro was “[two] years old at the time of [Mr.] García’s disappearance, so that she enjoyed her rights in accordance with her condition as a minor and, in some cases, through her mother. “ 266 Cf. CEH, supra, volume IV, pp. 229 and 233, paras. 4510, 4512 and 4523. 267 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 100. 63