- 68 - letter it had addressed to the President of Colombia on November 3 that year requesting “immediate measures to dismiss the […] perpetrators of Senator Cepeda’s murder.”283 Similarly, there is another public letter from Amnesty International dated November 11, 1999, affirming that “this death threat is related to the judicial proceedings filed against two members of the Colombian armed forces implicated in the murder of […] Manuel Cepeda Vargas.”284 194. In brief, the Court has sufficient evidence to presume a connection between the efforts to elucidate Senator Cepeda’s execution and the threats received by Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón. In this regard, the Court finds that their human rights defense activities, through the Manuel Cepeda Vargas Foundation, and the participation in politics of María Estella Cepeda (leader of the UP and the PCC in the city of Pasto, Nariño), cannot be disassociated from Senator Manuel Cepeda’s execution since, as the testimony received reveals, these activities have been assumed as a way of responding to what happened. 195. In other cases, the Court has found that the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims’ next of kin has been violated owing to the additional suffering resulting from subsequent acts or omissions by the State authorities in relation to the facts.285 In this case, the Court takes into account the situation experienced by the next of kin as a result of the threats they have faced following Senator Cepeda’s execution, among other possible motives, as a way of preventing them promoting the search for justice; and, in particular, the investigation and punishment of all those responsible for the facts, so that this constituted a violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of Iván Cepeda Castro, Claudia Girón and María Estella Cepeda 196. Similarly, the Court has verified that the said situation of insecurity led Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón to abandon Colombia from 2000 to 2004. In this regard, María Estella Cepeda stated that after the death of her father, her brother and his wife suffered constant threats, and were obliged to go abroad for four years in Lyon, France.”286 During their time abroad, they “received support from Amnesty International’s program for refugees, and they remained outside Colombia for four years owing to the exacerbation of the security conditions that made it inadvisable for them to return earlier.”287 The Court finds, therefore, that a sufficient relationship can be presumed between the threats received by Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón and their decision to abandon the country in 2000. 283 Cf. letter of November 6, 1999, from Human Rights Watch to the Ministry of National Defense, supra note 278, folio 1980. See also, letter of November 3, 1999, from Human Rights Watch to the President of the Republic of Colombia at the time (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 37 to the application, folios 1985 to 1988). 284 Public letter from Amnesty International “Temor por la seguridad” [Fearful for their safety] concerning Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón of November 11, 1999 (evidence file, tome XXII, attachment 12 to the final arguments of the representatives, folio 9172). In addition, the particular danger for their safety at that time is illustrated, among other matters, by the fact that, as of 1999, Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón were accompanied by Peace Brigades International, an organization dedicated to accompanying human rights defenders in dangerous situations. Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8244, and sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Claudia Victoria Girón Ortiz on January 4, 2010, supra note 257, folio 8300. 285 Cf. Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 114-116; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 206, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 51, 163. 286 Cf. sworn statement made before notary public (affidavit) by María Cepeda Castro on December 30, 2009, supra note 260, folio 8545. 287 Cf. Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8241.