and the respective trial, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention.163 This includes broad opportunities to participate and to be heard, both in the establishment of the facts and the punishment of the perpetrators, as well as in seeking compensation.164 In this regard, the Commission observes that encouraging the participation of victims in the criminal proceedings also requires providing them with adequate protection in view of threats or attacks intended to prevent such participation.165 182. The IACHR reiterates that impunity in these types of crimes encourages self-censorship, and thus undermines democratic debate.166 In its judgment in case of Vélez Restrepo v. Colombia, the InterAmerican Court held that impunity in these types of cases creates the reasonable “fear that this type of human rights violation might be repeated, and this could lead to [the] self-censorship of [journalists’] work, for example, as regards the type of news covered, the way the information is obtained, and the decision to disseminate it.”167 183. It has been established that the relatives limited their participation in the investigation and in the criminal case because of the threats warning them that if they continued “to go after the perpetrators there would be more deaths in the family,” and because attorneys in the area were afraid to represent them. The IACHR notes that there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the State took special measures designed to protect the lives and safety of the alleged victim’s relatives and to ensure their participation in the case. Nor is there any evidence that the threats were ever investigated. When the State fails to ensure the protection of the victim’s relatives, it helps perpetuate the acts of violence and intimidation against them and prevent the establishment of the facts.168 184. Accordingly, the IACHR considers it proven that there was a lack of due diligence in the official investigation, which has given rise to impunity in this case. This lack of due diligence is evident in the failure to take the necessary protection measures in view of the threats that were made during the investigations, the ineffectiveness in identifying all of the perpetrators, the undue delay and lack of substantial progress in the investigations, and the obstacles to the participation of Nelson Carvajal’s relatives in the investigations. 185. The Commission is of the opinion that the State failed to act with due diligence to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the murder of journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal. To date, the crime has gone unpunished; Mr. Carvajal Carvajal’s relatives have not had access to truth and justice, and the journalists in the region have suffered the consequences of having a crime intended to silence them go 163 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. 41. 164 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. 41. 165 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163. Para. 171; 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. 58; 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. 203-204; I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213. Para. 194195. 166 IACHR. 2009 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (InterAmerican Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 179; 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. 167 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. 212. 168 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163. Para. 175; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 322.