right to seek information.” Colombia also maintained that it “is not responsible for violating the social dimension of freedom of thought and expression,” and “is not responsible for violating the right to freedom of thought and expression of Mr. Vélez and his immediate family as regards the presumed harassment, threats and attempted kidnapping” that supposedly occurred after August 29, 1996. c) “Partially, for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, with regard to Richard Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, Juliana Vélez Román and Mateo Vélez Román. Essentially, because: o o o No serious investigation was undertaken that would have allowed the determination and [eventual] criminal punishment of the perpetrators of the attack suffered by Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996.” Colombia explained that “[t]his acknowledgment involves two aspects: the loss of the criminal case file (owing to] circumstances inherent in an area of détente decreed in the context of the peace process that the State had embarked on at the time of the events […],” and because, since it was impossible to consult the case file, it has been unable to comply “with its obligation to prove that the conclusion reached by the 22nd Military Criminal Judge regarding the failure to identify those presumably responsible resulted from a serious decision undertaken with due diligence in the investigation conducted by the military justice system.” “No serious investigation was undertaken that would have determined and eventually led to the criminal punishment of the presumed authors of the threats of which Mr. Vélez Restrepo was a victim, and There was a violation of reasonable time in the investigation conducted into the presumed attempted kidnapping that supposedly took place against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on October 6, 199[7].” d) Colombia affirmed that it was not responsible for the alleged violation of the principle of the natural judge. In addition, it argued that it was not responsible for the alleged violations of the right to movement and residence, the rights of the family, and the rights of the child to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family; the alleged violation of the right to life of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, and the alleged violation of the honor and dignity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo. 15. Colombia also stated that it recognize as victims both Mr. Vélez Restrepo, and also his wife Aracelly Román Amariles and their children Juliana and Mateo Vélez Román. 16. Regarding the reparations, the State indicated that it “deeply regretted the events that occurred and that its intention was, above all, to achieve comprehensive reparation for the victims in this case and that similar events are not repeated.” The State indicated its “good faith to repair the damage caused by the absence of a serious investigation into the threats and personal injury, and the efforts it will take to advance the ongoing investigation into the presumed attempted kidnapping.” However, it opposed “the reparation requested as regard reopening the criminal investigations into personal injury and threats, which have now prescribed, [on the grounds that] this would constitute a violation of the international obligations embodied in the American Convention.” Regarding the measures to protect Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s family, the special programs to protect journalists at risk and to investigate crimes against them, and the training for the military forces, the State indicated that “these three reparations are unwarranted, since the State has been complying with them [… and] will continue to comply with them.” As for the measures of psychosocial and medical 8