democratic society, particularly in relation to freedom of thought and expression and association, as well as the principle of non-discrimination for reasons of political opinion and social condition”.160 However, it is not possible to analyze the alleged breach of Article I d) of the IACFDP, which entered into force for Colombia in May 2005 (supra para. 13). This is because the State has reported that the military regulations or manuals in question were no longer in effect at that time, and also because in May 2005 the possible continued use of the practice had not been examined in this case. 140. What has already been said regarding the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention also explains the relationship between Mr. Movilla’s forced disappearance and the violation of his right to freedom of association, which must be able to be exercised freely, without fear of violence; otherwise, the capacity of groups to organize to protect their interests could be undermined (supra para. 120). The Court has already indicated that an act of forced disappearance, when its purpose is to prevent the legitimate exercise of a right, may constitute a violation of that right (supra para. 120). In this case, given the context in which the disappearance took place, and since the military intelligence’s notes on Mr. Movilla mention his trade union and political activities, it must be assumed that the intention was to punish or prevent those activities by means of the forced disappearance to which he was subjected. This adversely affected Pedro Movilla’s right to freedom of association, and the right of people to form groups for ideological, political, social or other purposes, which include trade union activity. However, the Court does not find additional evidence of a specific violation of Mr. Movilla’s freedom of expression. The material impediment to the exercise of that right is included in the ruling on the freedom of association and does not warrant additional examination. B.3 Conclusion 141. Therefore, this Court finds that Colombia violated the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, and to freedom of association, enshrined in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7 and 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty and Article I a) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Mr Movilla. VIII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, 161 TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION,162 AND TO THE TRUTH163 142. With the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention has been established in relation to Article 1(1) of the treaty, to the detriment of Pedro Movilla and his relatives (supra paras. 32, 34 and 39). However, it is necessary for the Court to make the following determinations concerning the implications of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. These are conclusions not expressly covered by that acknowledgement, but which this Court deems to be a direct consequence of the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the determinations already made regarding the forced disappearance of Pedro Movilla. The Court will then examine the remaining disputes related to the right to the truth. Lastly, the Court will set out its conclusion. Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 144. Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 162 Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 163 The right to truth was alleged in this case based on Articles 5(1), 8(1), 13 and 25(1) of the American Convention. This section also addresses allegations regarding Articles I a), I b), I d) and XIV of the IACFDP. 160 161 38