10 On the Alleged Threats, Acts of Harassment and Intimidation, Attempted Kidnapping and Consequent Forced Exile 57. The State points out that the evidence provided by the petitioners is not decisive or sufficient to show the existence of the alleged threats and intimidation, even less the involvement of state agents in such activity. It stresses that the disciplinary investigations undertaken against the state agents for the alleged threats were archived for being groundless. 58. The State points out that the petitioners do not show conclusive proof of the alleged link between the agents involved in the events of August 29, 1996, and the alleged threats, and that the mere statements of the petitioner that in case he were to return to Colombia he would continue to be in danger, have no basis whatsoever. 59. The State points out that once the alleged threats and harassment were brought to the attention of the competent authorities in October 1997, the State, via the Interior Ministry's witness protection program, immediately provided different protective measures aimed at offering security to Mr. Vélez and his family, even despite the lack of certainty on the existence of such threats. The State alleges that three days after having granted him protective measures, Mr. Vélez decided to leave the country. 60. The State points out that with respect to the alleged kidnapping attempt that occurred on October 6, 1997, there was no evidence in the case file establishing with certainty whether it occurred. The State alleges that it is not possible to determine whether the kidnapping actually occurred, and if it did, whether it was a direct consequence of the facts giving rise to the petition or the complaints lodged by Mr. Vélez or with his status as a journalist. The State stressed that the petitioners have also not shown the alleged involvement of State agents. 61. The State alleges that the petitioners made a groundless assertion to the effect that the allegations bear the hallmarks of a pattern of intimidation, violence and censorship against journalists in Colombia, an assertion that completely goes beyond the object of this case. On the Proceedings Undertaken in the Domestic Jurisdiction and the State's International Responsibility 62. The State made it clear that it would not comment on the alleged violation of Articles 4, 7, 11 and 22.5 of the Convention, in view of the fact that they were examined and declared inadmissible by the IACHR in its Report No. 47/08. 63. With respect to Articles 17 and 19 of the Convention, the State alleges that the petitioners made a mistake "by confusing the alleged violations of the rights to family life and the protection of minors with the possibility that his wife and children might be considered as alleged victims of other convention rights." The State requested that the Commission declare that the State had not violated Articles 17, and 19 of the Convention. 64. With respect to Article 5 of the Convention, the State does not deny the aggressions and consequent injuries suffered by Mr. Vélez. It alleges, however, that it acted in a preventive way to avoid any excessive use of force in the context of the demonstration, and acted immediately and effectively to investigate and punish the state agents responsible as the direct perpetrators. The State therefore requests that the Commission declare that there is no violation of Article 5 in relation to the events occurring on August 29, 1996. 65. With regard to the alleged threats and intimidation against Mr. Vélez, as well as the alleged attempted kidnapping, the State insists that the petitioners have failed not only to prove it