- 71 - restriction of this right in violation of Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of both of them. B. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO HONOR AND DIGNITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN DUE TO STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS 203. The Commission asked that the Court declare the State responsible for violating the right to the protection of the honor and dignity of the next of kin, because the statements made against them by senior State officials constituted “acts of stigmatization” that harmed them “and the Senator’s memory.” The representatives considered that these statements “were particularly serious because, in addition to promoting hate, public contempt and persecution, they had and have the effect of inciting violence against the victim and his next of kin.” The State indicated that it had not “been proved that the next of kin suffered harassment directly related to this situation and, in particular, that this harassment has actually taken place; consequently the State did not extend its acknowledgement of responsibility” to this aspect. 204. In this regard, it is reasonable to consider, first, that the vulnerability occasioned to Senator Cepeda Vargas, in the context in which he was linked to the FARC (supra paras. 85 to 87), had repercussions also on his next of kin, harming their honor, since the social stigma and the public accusations against him extended also to his family, especially following his execution. Iván Cepeda, in particular, was affected, and this formed “part of the context of threats and security problems that he continues to endure, and that arise from accusations based on his efforts on behalf of his father’s memory and from his role in the investigation of the case, and also because he is currently a focal point of the struggle for human rights in Colombia.”303 205. Second, the alleged violation of Article 11 is based on two specific facts that prejudiced Iván Cepeda: on the one hand, a message issued as part of the electoral publicity for the re-election campaign of the President of the Republic, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, starting in mid-April 2006304 and, on the other, a speech of the President of the Republic on May 6, 2008, in which he allegedly “accused the son of Senator Cepeda, Iván Cepeda, of being a human rights imposter and of using the protection of victims of human rights violations to request donations from abroad.” This Court notes that the speech of May 6, 2008, is a new fact, not included within the factual framework of the application; consequently, in cannot be examined. 206. Regarding the former fact, the Court has verified that it appears in the application, which indicates that it was the Constitutional Court itself that, on November 20, 2006, handed down Judgment T-959 which recognized that the dissemination of certain messages through the mass media had harmed the good name and honor of Iván Cepeda Castro, as the son of one of the victims of the political 303 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8242. 304 In this publicity message, a presumed former member of the UP political group said: “Mr. President: I belonged to the UP; I believed it to be a good movement, but we became twisted; kill for the sake of killing; harm others; kill civilians; this is bad. It is a good thing that you are combating them; that is why we are now supporting you with all we have. Keep it up, Mr. President!” Ruling of the Fifth Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia of November 20, 2006, in case T-13911055 (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 41 to the application, folio 2010).