29 The murder, kidnapping, intimidation of and/or threats to social communicators, as well as the material destruction of communications media violate the fundamental rights of individuals and strongly restrict freedom of expression. It is the duty of the state to prevent and investigate such occurrences, to punish their perpetrators and to ensure that victims receive due compensation. 134. The IACHR has also emphasized the importance of adopting special mechanisms to protect journalists and to combat impunity for crimes committed against them, such as the special protection programs, investigatory bodies and specialized judges. 112 135. In the present case, the Commission has found the State responsible for a series of threats and acts of harassment caused by the complaints Mr. Vélez lodged with respect to the aggression he suffered at the hands of the Army on August 26, 1996. These acts were done with the clear intention of silencing Mr. Vélez and making him cease his complaints, causing selfcensorship and intimidation not only to Mr. Vélez but to the body of journalists covering the activities of the military forces. 136. In this sense, the IACHR has indicated that violence aimed at a person as a result of the exercise of his right to the freedom of expression, as well as the absence of a criminal investigation and punishment of the perpetrators, not only has a 'chilling effect' on the crime victim, but also a profound impact on those who intend to exercise their right to freedom of expression in the same way. In addition, the Commission has emphasized that "the absence of a complete investigation, leading to the criminal punishment of all those responsible for the murder of a journalist is equally a violation of the right to the freedom of expression, for the intimidating effect that it has on the impunity of citizens." 113 It has also observed that: these type of crimes have an intimidating effect on other journalists, but also on other ordinary citizens, as it instills the fear of denouncing any and all kinds of offenses, abuses or illegal acts. [...][S]uch an effect can only be avoided by swift action on the part of the State to punish all perpetrators, as is its duty under international and domestic law. In this sense, the State [...] must sent a strong message to society that there will be no tolerance for those who engage in such a grave violation of the right to freedom of expression. 114 137. In the same sense, the Inter-American Court has maintained that violations of human rights motivated by the exercise of a certain activity intimidates other individuals who equally try to exercise it. 115 In the case of violence and intimidation against journalists, it produces a 'chilling effect' on the free flow of information affecting not only other journalists but all ordinary citizens. 116 112 Cf. IACHR, Annual Report 2008, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5 rev. 1, January 25, 2009, Volume III, Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter IV, para.50. See also IACHR, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Press Release R41-10. In this context the IACHR has recognized the importance of the Journalists' Protection Program established in Colombia via Decree 1592 in 2000 and those that modify or supplement it, especially Decree 2816 of 2006. Cf. IACHR, Annual Report 2008, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5 rev. 1, February 25, 2009, Volume III, Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter IV, para.50. 113 IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999, para.47. 114 IACHR. Report No. 50/99. Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999, para.52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999, para.58. 115 For example, in relation to the right to association and freedom to exercise union rights, in the case Huilca Tecse, the Court considered that the execution of a union leader due to his militancy and his public criticism of the administration, on the one hand, violated the freedom of association of the victim himself, and on the other hand, restricted the freedom of certain persons to associate freely, without fear. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para.66. 116 See IACHR, Inter-American Judicial Framework on the Right to the Freedom of Expression OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/RELE/INF. 2/09, December 30, 2009, para.179.