17 injury and whose right are verified during the proceeding; and although they are not recognized as victims, they are recognized the characteristic consequences of being a victim: reparation. X. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 63. I believe that, in addition to the violations established by the Inter-American Court, the Myrna Mack Chang case may entail an attack on the freedom of expression embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, more precisely and relevantly than the Maritza Urrutia case, in which the InterAmerican Commission proposed this type of violation. In the latter case, this international Court considered – and I share that decision – that the facts identified as violating Article 13 were more adequately encompassed in other concepts, such as “the right not to be compelled to be a witness against [one]self or to plead guilty” (Article 8(2)g)) and the prohibition to inflict degrading treatment (Article 5(2)) (para. 103 of the Judgment in Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, of November 27, 2003). 64. In the Mack Chang case, the reaction of the authorities that finally culled her life arose, according to the information in the case file, from the anthropologist’s research and publications on the internal displacements of groups of the civilian population of her country. It was not verified that Myrna Mack had belonged to a rebel fighting group or had taken part in activities of resistance – possibly armed resistance – to the forces of public order. The factor that may have attracted the attention of the State agents who finally intervened in the deprivation of her life was the publication of the results of her research on this issue, which involved a serious questioning of specific Government policies and actions. 65. Indeed, in the chapter on proven facts, it is stated that Myrna Mack Chang, a professional anthropologist, who had obtained her postgraduate degree in England (para. 134.1), “studied the phenomenon of the internally displaced and the Guatemalan Comunidades de Población en Resistencia (CPR) during the civil war years.” She was a founding member of the Guatemalan Association for the Advancement of Social Sciences (AVANCSO), created “in order to conduct research into the causes and consequences of the displacements of the rural indigenous communities, the living conditions of the victims of this phenomenon, and Government policies for the displaced.” Based on her research, she concluded that “the principal cause of the displacements was the counterinsurgency program,” called “Government efforts to resolve these problems minimal, and criticized the Army’s policy towards those displaced” (para. 134.2). The same chapter on the proven facts in this case states that “the extrajudicial execution of Myrna Mack Chang was politically motivated, owing to her research activities on the Comunidades de Población en Resistencia (CPR) and the respective policies of the Guatemalan Army. This situation led her to be considered a threat to national security and to the Guatemalan Government” (para. 134.7). 66. Evidently, I am not attempting to examine here the scientific or technical bases for her research work, nor the truth or error of her conclusions. This is entirely beyond the Court’s assessment and my comments. What I must stress is that the victim had “freedom of thought and expression,” and that this right included “the 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 [her] choice” (Article 13(1) of the Convention).