11 but also the alleged involvement of state agents in the said events. The State pointed out that although protective measures were provided to Mr. Vélez, this does not imply that the alleged involvement of state agents in such events is proven. The State indicated that the disciplinary proceedings in connection with the alleged threats were archived, and that at present there is an ongoing investigation before the ordinary criminal courts. The State requested the Commission to declare that there is no violation of Article 5 in relation to the alleged threats and intimidation against Mr. Vélez. 66. In regard to the alleged violation of the personal integrity of Mr. Vélez's immediate family as a result of the alleged threats, the State repeats that there is no conclusive proof corroborating either the existence of such threats or the involvement of state agents with them, so that it requests that the State is declared not to have violated Article 5 with respect to the Vélez Román family. 67. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 13, the State points out that it adopted a series of preventive measures in favor of those journalists who find themselves in a situation of risk when exercising their profession. 68. The State alleges that the events of August 29, 1996, did not violate the individual dimension of Article 13 of the Convention because Mr. Vélez was able to seek, receive and disseminate the information he obtained during the media coverage of the demonstration. It points out that members of the Security Forces intervened in a quick and effective way to break up the attack and take Mr. Vélez from the area. 69. The State alleges that it also did not violate the individual dimension of the freedom of expression and opinion with regard to the alleged threats, acts of harassment and intimidation and the attempted kidnapping of Mr. Vélez. The State restated that the evidence supplied by the petitioners does not demonstrate that the facts took place, or the alleged involvement of state agents. The State points out, however, that once Mr. Vélez had lodged the respective complaints for the alleged threats, he was provided with protection; however, three days later Mr. Vélez decided to leave the country, for which he received the State's assistance. 70. The State also denies having violated the social dimension of Article 13. It pointed out that the events of August 29, 1996, were broadcast by the private television news channels without any censorship whatsoever, so that the public received the information in an opportune and truthful way. The State also stresses that the military commander exercised disciplinary control and punished those responsible in an exemplary way, and that the civilian and military authorities issued a condemnation and offered a public apology. 71. With respect to Article 22.1 of the Convention, the State alleges that Mr. Vélez never requested protection prior to the alleged attempted kidnapping occurring on October 6, 1997, and that on the same day that the attempted kidnapping allegedly occurred, the Interior Ministry's Witness Protection Program offered Mr. Vélez and his family the opportunity to move to any other part of the country, guaranteeing them financial aid for three months. Nevertheless, at that time, Mr. Vélez showed a wish to leave the country since he would not feel safe in any part of the national territory, so that the State institutions contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross who arranged for Mr. Vélez to leave the country on October 9, 1997. The State indicated that up until the day of his departure, the Protection Program provided Mr. Vélez with a bullet-proof vest, a police escort for his journeys, and that it relocated Aracelly Román, Mateo Vélez Román and Juliana Vélez Román to the city of Medellín, granting them humanitarian aid. The State did not comment on the petitioners' allegation to the effect that on October 6, 1997, a DAS bodyguard assigned to protect Mr. Vélez did not turn up at his house to accompany him to work.