- 70 - 199. According to the expert witness, “even today the threats are still constant, and they also follow a pattern of becoming worse at certain moments when Iván Cepeda is more in the public eye; moments when he has to change his behavior drastically.”297 Iván Cepeda Castro is obliged “to restrict his freedom of movement, limit his time away from home, or confine himself to closed places, and avoid travelling to certain parts of the country.”298 In an interview with the expert witness, former President Ernesto Samper stated that “[t]he threats against Iván Cepeda still relate to those that killed his father: McCarthyism, stigmatization, intolerance.”299 200. The State affirmed that it had provided sufficient guarantees for both of them to be able to return safely to their country. Indeed, the State advised that it had provided some measures of protection: Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón were included in a collective security plan as of January 14, 2005, and January 1, 2006, respectively, comprising a three-person escort and support materials.300 In addition, in 2006, the Inter-American Commission adopted precautionary measures to be implemented by the State. Also, the State provided information on the investigations conducted into the threats suffered by Manuel Cepeda’s next of kin. Specifically it referred to nine investigations where Iván Cepeda Castro appears as a victim of the facts; in two of these his wife, Claudia Girón, also appears as a victim. Furthermore, it reported on two other investigations, one in relation to Olga Navia Soto and another with regard to María Estella Cepeda Vargas. However, the evidence before the Court does not indicate the date of the complaint or to which facts it allegedly corresponded. According to the information provided, a restraining order has allegedly been issued in some cases, in two cases it was decided to suspend the investigation and, in others, the investigations are still underway.301 201. Although the Court assesses the measures adopted by the State, it is important to underline that, in the context of danger for the safety of Iván Cepeda and Claudia Girón, the absence of an effective investigation of the extrajudicial execution may contribute to or perpetuate an exile or forced displacement.302 In the instant case, the lack of an effective investigation and the identification and prosecution of all the authors of Senator Cepeda’s execution and, in particular, the impunity of the facts, not only undermined the confidence of the next of kin in the Colombian system of justice, but also contributed to the lack of security. 202. Based on the above, the Court finds that the justified fear for their own safety, linked to the execution of Senator Cepeda Vargas and the failure to identify all those responsible for this act, added to the threats they had received, caused Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Girón to go into exile for four years, which constituted a failure to guarantee the right to freedom of movement and residence together with a de facto 297 Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8244. 298 Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8244. 299 Opinion provided before notary public (affidavit) by expert witness Carlos Martín Beristain, supra note 208, folio 8239. 300 The State’s brief with final arguments, para. 162. 301 Cf. note No. 345 of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation of January 14, 2010 (evidence file, tome XXI, helpful evidence presented by the State, folios 8921 to 8922). 302 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 288, para. 120, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, para. 170.