together with their responses to the information requested by the Court at the public hearing. On April 13, 2012, these briefs were forwarded to the parties and the InterAmerican Commission. The President granted a time frame for the representative and the Commission to submit any observations they considered pertinent on the documentation presented by the State together with their final written arguments, as well as on the documentation forwarded by expert witness Tulande on March 28, 2012. In its brief of May 2, 2012, the Commission indicated that “it ha[d] no observations to make on the information provided by expert witness Tulande or [by the] State.” The representative did not submit any observations. 12. On July 6, 2012, the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the President, asked the State and the representative to provide specific information, documentation, or explanations as useful evidence. On July 18, 2012, Colombia submitted a document in partial response to the requests for helpful evidence and, following an extension granted to it, forwarded the rest of the documents and information requested by the President on July 27, and August 1 and 13, 2012. On August 9, 2012, the Commission submitted a communication in which it indicated that it had no observations to make on the documents provided by Colombia. After having been granted an extension, on August 21, 2012, the representative indicated that he had no observations to make on the said documentation. Also, on July 26, 2012, the representative forwarded his response to the request for useful evidence, submitting documentation that was already in the case file. III PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A) The State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and observations of the Commission and the representative 13. In its answering brief, the State made a partial acknowledgement of its international responsibility. In its final arguments brief, it “expanded” this acknowledgement concerning the violation of Article 5 of the Convention to Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s wife and their children Juliana and Mateo Vélez Román (infra para. 14(a)). 14. Regarding the facts and legal claims, it partially acknowledged its responsibility as follows: a) It “acknowledges, by its acts, the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, with regard to Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo, his wife Aracelly Roman Amariles, and their children Juliana Velez Roman and Mateo Velez Roman, for the attack suffered by Mr. Vélez as a result of acts by members of the National Army when he refused to give up his video camera on August 29, 1996.” In addition, it affirmed that it “does not acknowledge the violation of the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez and his immediate family as regards the presumed harassment, threats and attempted kidnapping alleged by the [Commission] and the representatives.” b) “By its acts, the violation of the individual dimension of right to freedom of expression recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention of Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, taking into account that he was prevented from exercising his right to seek information as a result of the attack of August 29, 1996.” The State asserted that “the attacks that occurred [that day] interrupted the victim’s journalistic work, thereby violating his 7