34 had a duty to respect and ensure the human rights protection activities of the members of the Vicariate, including Joe Luis Castillo González. 151. The Commission recalls that the obligations of the State arising from the killing of a human rights defender and its repercussions on the right to freedom of association are accentuated and must be examined in the light of the special framework of protection that Article 16 of the American Convention affords. In this regard, the court has held that “States have the duty to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; [...] to refrain from placing restrictions that would hinder the performance of their work, and to conduct serious and effective investigations of any violations against them, thus preventing impunity.”181 152. The Commission considers that the organized work of human rights defenders is an essential component in building a solid and lasting democracy, fully achieving the rule of law, and securing the fundamental guarantees of every human being. In the instant case the Commission notes that the State failed either to conduct a meaningful and effective investigation of the facts connected with his murder in order to identify those responsible, or provide comprehensive reparation to his next of kin, with the attendant detrimental effect on those who work in defense of human rights in the area of Machiques, State of Zulia and, in particular, in the Apostolic Vicariate. 153. In this connection, the Commission considers that the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González has had a direct intimidating effect on the processes of claiming rights and denouncing violations.182 Thus, following the murder of Joe Luis Castillo González, the Vicariate closed for two months, after which it redirected the efforts of the Social Action Office toward activities to strengthen community work. 154. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right of Joe Luis Castillo González to freedom of association recognized in Article 16(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the duty to observe rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. 5. Right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13 of the American Convention) 155. The American Convention guarantees for all the right to freedom of thought and expression. Article 13 of said instrument provides, “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.” 156. Based on the contents of the right ensured in Article 13 of the American Convention, expression and dissemination of thoughts and ideas are indivisible and any restriction on the possibility of imparting them represents a curb on the right to express oneself freely. This right is essential in developing and strengthening democracy as well as for the full exercise of human rights. Full recognition of freedom of expression is a fundamental guarantee for ensuring the rule of law and democratic institutions. 157. The Commission has determined that freedom of expression is [one] of the rights essential to the work of human rights defenders.183 Nonetheless, not every murder, act of intimidation, or attack on human rights defenders or on any person or group that seeks to influence society that constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. From that perspective, in order to substantiate a violation 181 I/A Court H.R., Case Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 145. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, par. 77, and I/A Court H.R. Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 91. 182 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, par. 141; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121. 183 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, par. 79.