92 318. The IACHR also notes with concern that the investigation into these acts by the authorities has been focused exclusively on the activity of paramilitary groups in the zone, and it has not explored the possible participation of state actors, as will be discussed below. As indicated above, Ms. Ospina reported to the authorities indicia of direct facilitation by official forces of the occupation of her home by the paramilitary groups, given the illegal search of the home on March 3, 2003, and their aggressive acts towards and questioning of Mr. Oscar Hoyos. Ms. Ospina reported how this act led to the total abandonment of the house by her family; the appropriation of their property; and the dismantling of the structure. 319. It has been proven that at the time of the facts at issue in this matter the State was aware of the situation of armed conflict in Comuna 13 and its impact on the civilian population, and it had been duly put on notice of this situation by the international community. The action of the illegal armed groups in the zone at the time of the facts included acts aimed at causing the forced displacement of members of social organizations followed by the appropriation of their dwellings and property.452 For example, Mmes. Naranjo, Rúa, and Mosquera testified before the IACHR at a public hearing that in 2002 that it was a known practice in Comuna 13 for the houses of community leaders to be marked with a phosphorescent “X” by the paramilitary groups, so as to then be dismantled.453 In the face of this situation the State was obligated to adopt not only measures to protect life and integrity of the women human rights defenders mentioned, but also reasonable measures to protect their property both during the time they resided in Comuna 13 and after their forced displacement. 320. Because of the above-cited reasons, the Commission considers that the appropriation of these houses and the gradual destruction thereof by the paramilitary members, in the absence of reasonable measures by the public security forces in control of the area, amounts to a serious deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the property of Ms. Rúa and Ospina and their next of kin. 321. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the IACHR concludes that the right to property, as set forth under Article 21 (1 and 2) was violated to the detriment of Ms. Rúa and Ospina, and their next of kin, in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention. From the file, the Commission has been able to identify the following family members of Ms. Rúa which were affected as Gustavo de Jesús Tobón (permanent companion); Bárbara del Sol (daughter); Úrsula Manuela (daughter) and Valentina (daughter); and those of Ms. Ospina as Oscar Julio Hoyos Oquendo (husband), Edid Yazmín (son), Oscar Darío (son), and Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina (daughter). F. Right to Freedom of Association (Article 16454), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 452 United Nations, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Colombia, Annual Report 2002, para. 32. 453 st Audio, IACHR, Hearing, 131 period of sessions, Cases – 12,596 Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, 12,595 – Miriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa, and 12,621 – Teresa Yarce, Mery Naranjo, and Socorro Mosquera (“Comuna 13”), Colombia, March 12, 2008. 454 a. Article 16 of the American Convention provides that: Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes.