As the Inter-American Court has observed, “journalism can only be exercised freely when those who carry out this work are not victims of threats or physical, mental or moral attacks or other acts of harassment.” 164 74. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has held that “it is essential that journalists who work in the media should enjoy the necessary protection and independence to exercise their functions to the fullest, because it is they who keep society informed, an indispensable requirement to enable society to enjoy full freedom and for public discourse to become stronger.” 165 Similarly, it has affirmed that “the combination of violence against journalists and impunity has a highly negative impact, first, on journalists themselves and their families, and second, because it has resulted in diverse communities [...] not receiving information on issues that affect them, such as armed conflict, organized crime, drug trafficking, and political corruption.” 166 75. In the case of violence committed against journalists or media workers for exercising their right to freedom of expression, the Inter-American case law has explained that the rights to life, humane treatment, and freedom of expression are closely related 167 and that they give rise to positive State obligations. In this regard, the IACHR has recognized that States have an obligation to protect those who are exposed to a special risk by reason of the practice of their profession. 168 The scope of the State's positive obligation to protect persons who are exposed to a special risk was defined by the Inter-American Court, when it noted that “For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate danger to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that danger.” 169 76. According to the Inter-American case law and scholarship, this special risk must be evaluated in light of the existing country context, and may arise from factors such as the type of events they cover, the public interest of the information they disseminate, or the area they must go to in order to do their work, as well as to those who are the target of threats in relation to the dissemination of that information or for denouncing or promoting the investigation of violations that they suffered or of those they became aware of in the course of their work. 170 The Court emphasized that, “[it is incumbent upon] State authorities to get to know the situation of special risk in order to determine or assess whether the person who is the target of threats and harassment requires measures of protection or to refer the case to the competent authority to do this, and also to offer the person at risk timely information on the measures available.” 171 77. States not only have an obligation to protect at-risk journalists, but must also ensure that the protection measures taken are effective and appropriate. In this regard, when measures are taken to protect a journalist from a credible threat of harm to his or her physical integrity, these measures should take into account the specific needs of the beneficiary’s profession, gender, and other individual circumstances. 172 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248. Para. 209. 165 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C, No. 74. Para. 150; I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C, No. 107. Para. 119. 166 I/A Court H.R. Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Para. 177. 167 I/A Court H.R. Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Para. 176. 168 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against journalists and media workers: Inter-American Standards and national practices on prevention, protection and prosecution of perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 31. 169 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C, No. 140. Para. 124, citing the European Court of Human Rights, Case of Kılıç v. Turkey. Application no. 22492/93. Judgment of 28 March 2000. Para. 63. 170 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248. Para. 193-94. 171 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248. Para. 201. 172 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against journalists and media workers: Inter-American Standards and national practices on prevention, protection and prosecution of perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 72; The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ 164 20