determined that the lack of a serious and effective investigation into the murder of Joe Castillo has had “a 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 [of Machiques],” evidenced by the two-month closure of the Vicariate, which subsequently refocused its activities on community work. Consequently, it declared the violation “of the right to freedom of association (Article 16(1)) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1), to the detriment of Joe Castillo.” 180. In their arguments, the representatives conducted a joint analysis of the violations of the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. They recalled that both rights “impose both negative and positive obligations on the States,” for which reason the State must protect and guarantee them, and that the exercise of such freedoms requires “the existence of social conditions and practices that favor them.” They added that the State is must “adopt necessary and reasonable measures to prevent and protect the rights of […] individuals who [find] themselves in situations of risk or vulnerability.” The representatives referred to the “double dimension of the right to freedom of expression and to the fact that, without it, “efforts to protect and promote [human] rights would be jeopardized”; moreover, they noted that the State must “provide all the means necessary to ensure [that advocates] can carry out their activities freely”. They argued that the State failed in its duty to provide “safety measures” to Joe Castillo and “other defenders” so that “they could do their work without fear of suffering an attempt on their life”. They added that the exercise of these rights was essential for the performance of Mr. Castillo’s work as a human rights defender. 181. They added that the State’s omissions resulted in “a radical violation of his freedom of expression and […] association, independent and separate from the right to life” affecting the social and individual dimensions of both rights. Therefore, they concluded that Venezuela violated Articles 13 and 16, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention [,] to the detriment of Joe Luis Castillo González. 182. For its part, in relation to the right to freedom of thought and expression the State agreed with the Commission that there are no “factual elements to demonstrate that the death of Joe Luis Castillo sought to limit his right to freedom of expression.” It added that no complaints about threats were received from him, and therefore it is not possible “to claim […] that the death of Joe […] Castillo was an indirect form of curtailing the right to freedom of expression.” 183. Finally, the State merely pointed out that it is not responsible for the violation of the right to association, given that it did carry out the relevant investigations. However the lack of evidence prevented the identification of the perpetrators of the crime, and given that an investigation is an obligation of means and not of results, in certain circumstances it is materially impossible to identify the perpetrators of an unlawful act. Considerations of the Court 184. The Court notes that the arguments regarding the alleged violations of the rights to personal integrity, to the protection of honor and dignity, to freedom of thought and expression and to freedom of association, are based on the State’s alleged responsibility for the murder of Joe Castillo and for harming the personal integrity of Yelitze Moreno and Luis Castillo, or on the alleged lack of a proper investigation of the facts. The Court considers that the State is not internationally responsible for the violation of the rights mentioned, enshrined in Articles 5, 11(2), 13, and 16 of the American Convention, since it was not demonstrated that the rights to life, personal integrity and of the child were violated 45