122. The failure to punish these types of acts encourages the repetition of similar violent acts and can result in the silencing and self-censorship of journalists.133 Impunity has a strong chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression, and the consequences for democracy—which depends upon the free, open, and dynamic exchange of information—are particularly serious.134 123. The Inter-American Court has also referred to the chilling effect that crimes against journalists have on other media professionals as well as on the citizens who want to report abuses of power or unlawful acts of any kind.135 124. The bodies of the Inter-American system have recognized that the duty to investigate, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish the perpetrators of a human rights violation is an obligation of means, not of ends. This means that the State does not incur international responsibility “merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result.”136 Nevertheless, they have reiterated that this obligation must be met in accordance with the principles derived from the American Convention. 125. In meeting its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish the perpetrators of acts of violence committed against journalists on account of the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, the States must emphasize certain specific obligations, including: (i) the obligation to adopt an adequate institutional framework that allows it to effectively investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of violence against journalists; (ii) the obligation to act with due diligence and exhaust lines of investigation related to the victim’s practice of journalism; (iii) the obligation to conduct investigations within a reasonable period of time; and (iv) the obligation to facilitate the participation of victims in the investigations.137 2. Analysis of the case 126. The Commission considers that for purposes of examining the merits of this individual petition, there is sufficient and consistent prosecution evidence in this case—evidence held by the very government bodies responsible for the investigation and the criminal case—to conclude that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s murder was connected to his work as a journalist and to his public exposés of local crime and corruption. This link to his work is relevant to analyze the State's response to the facts. 127. As is clear from the body of evidence, a significant number of the witness statements given during the investigation into the murder of journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal link the crime to his work as an “exposé journalist”. At the same time, it is noted that all of the logical theories of masterminding examined by the authorities in charge of the investigation establish Nelson Carvajal’s journalistic work as the motive for 133 IACHR. Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Special Study on the Status of Investigations into the Murder of Journalists during the 1995-2005 Period for Reasons That May Be Related to Their Work in Journalism. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131. Doc. 35. March 8, 2008. Para. 129. 134 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5. Para. 70; IACHR. 2013 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 2. 135 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. Para. 148; IACHR. Report No. 136/10. Case 12.658. Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and Family (Colombia). October 23, 2010. Para. 136; 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. See also, IACHR. 2010 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II: 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 7, 2011. Para. 716. 136 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para.177. IACHR. 2013 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 175 et seq. 137