diligence in the investigation of the previous and subsequent threats suffered so far by Ms. Bedoya and her mother, Luz Nelly Lima; and (iii) the effects of all the above on the personal integrity of Luz Nelly Lima. VIII -1 RIGHTS TO LIFE, PERSONAL INTEGRITY, PERSONAL LIBERTY, PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, AND EQUAL PROTECTION, 185 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESPECT AND GUARANTEE, AS WELL AS TO ARTICLES 7(A) AND (B) OF THE CONVENTION OF BELÉM DO PARÁ AND ARTICLES 1 AND 6 OF THE ICPPT 82. In this chapter, the Court will examine, first, the allegations regarding the violation of the rights to humane treatment and personal liberty, recognized in articles 5(1) and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, as well as articles 7(a) and (b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, regarding the facts that took place on May 25, 2000 to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya. Second, it will analyze whether the facts that took place on May 25, 2000 qualify as torture and whether the State may eventually be found internationally responsible for the alleged violation of articles 5(2) and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT. Lastly, the Court will examine the alleged impact of these facts on the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 83. Regarding the facts that took place on May 25, 2000, the Commission observed that the State was aware that Ms. Bedoya could be the victim of an attack on her life and personal integrity as a consequence of her coverage of the incidents of violence that took place in the La Modelo Prison in the days prior. The Commission argued that the meeting with police officials one day prior to the facts over threats placed in the mailboxes at El Espectador during which "recommendations on selfprotection" were made did not constitute a reasonable action in this particular case. For the Commission, in view of “the circumstances of the case and the context in the country,” the risk that Ms. Bedoya faced was “real and imminent.” The Commission also noted that “neither the DAS, nor the National Police, nor the Protection Unit of the Ministry of the Interior […] adopted timely and adequate measures to prevent acts of violence and intimidation against Jineth Bedoya—specifically, to prevent the events of May 25, 2000.” Likewise, the Commission classified the facts of violence and, in particular, sexual violence suffered by Ms. Bedoya as torture, since "they were carried out intentionally," "caused the journalist serious physical and psychological suffering," and " they were perpetrated with a dual purpose: to punish her for her work and to dissuade other journalists.” It argued that the rape of Ms. Bedoya in the framework of the internal armed conflict in Colombia was used "as a symbolic means of humiliating her or as a means of punishment and repression," as a "weapon of terror" or "weapon or tactic of war.” The Commission concluded that the authorities did not take measures that could reasonably have been adopted to prevent the materialization of a certain and imminent risk to the life, integrity, and personal liberty of Jineth Bedoya, in violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention. It also added that this lack of protection had “an impact on the exercise of other fundamental rights,” such as the right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 13 of the American Convention. Likewise, it argued that by failing to comply with 185 Articles 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, Articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT. 32