its obligation to protect the journalist from the sexual violence she suffered, the State violated Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11, and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention, Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1 and 6 of the ICPPT. Likewise, in its final written arguments, it argued that there was “serious evidence” suggesting the participation of State agents in the facts. 84. The representatives argued that the State did not comply with its obligation to respect, since there was “close collaboration” between paramilitaries and State agents in the perpetration of the facts that took place on May 25, 2000. This would also mean that the State was responsible for the “illegal and arbitrary detention of the victim” and the “sexual violence to which she was subjected by paramilitary soldiers who acted in cooperation with State agents,” which was classified as acts of torture. Additionally, the representatives argued that in this case, the State had an enhanced duty to prevent the violation of the rights of journalist Jineth Bedoya in view of her status as a woman journalist and a human rights defender, and given the existence of a context of violence against journalists and a systematic practice of sexual violence against women around the time of the facts. They added that the State was aware of the risk to which she was exposed and did not adopt effective measures. They also noted that the authorities had specific knowledge that Ms. Bedoya was facing a situation of "real and immediate risk as a result of the multiple threats she had received and her specific work at La Modelo." They therefore concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Ms. Bedoya's rights set forth in articles 5, 7, and 11 of the American Convention and breach of its obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT. Additionally, they indicated that these facts also amounted to a violation of Ms. Bedoya's right to freedom of expression, since the attack on Ms. Bedoya was also intended to “send a message to journalists in the country about the risks of investigating issues related to the armed conflict in Colombia and specifically the participation of state and paramilitary actors.” They additionally argued that the State was responsible for the violation of Ms. Bedoya's right to defend human rights, since all the facts suffered by Ms. Bedoya took place as a result of the human rights defense work that she was doing and continues to do. Consequently, they concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of articles 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with breach of the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 85. The State indicated that it had taken reasonable measures to address the risk facing Ms. Bedoya. It argued that it was not aware of the risk facing Ms. Bedoya, and that prior to the events of May 25, 2000, the journalist had support from State authorities, especially the National Police, who offered her measures of protection in response to the threats received. It argued that Ms. Bedoya Lima should have notified the authorities in advance that she was going to the La Modelo prison to conduct the interview with “El Panadero,” but that she never did. The State objected to the Commission's assertion that Ms. Bedoya was denied implementation of the measures of protection, since, as indicated, she was offered other mechanisms of protection and offered the suggestion that she go directly to State security agencies (DAS, National Police). Regarding the State’s alleged participation in the facts that took place on May 25, 2000, the State argued that the judicial authorities seriously and diligently investigated the possible participation of State agents and that this hypothesis could not be corroborated. In its final written arguments, the State reiterated that there was insufficient evidence to prove, "beyond any reasonable doubt," that State agents had participated in the planning and execution of the facts, although it specified that currently, the criminal investigation into the facts that took place on May 25, 2000 remains ongoing and that one of the current lines of investigation “is seeking to establish whether State agents participated in the case." Lastly, it argued that all of the foregoing mean that Colombia should not be held responsible for the acts of torture suffered by Ms. Bedoya. B. 86. Considerations of the Court Preliminarily, the Court notes that there is no dispute as to the fact that on May 25, 2000, Ms. 33