25 taking into account the nature of the harassment as well as the contextual elements such as the legal complaints made by Mr. Vélez regarding the events of August 29, the individuals and institutions implicated in the complaints, and the abovementioned practice of the Colombian armed forces at that time of resisting and at times obstructing investigations against them. 119. According to the State itself and in conformity with the information present in the case file, it was not until October 6, 1997, that the State adopted concrete protective measure to protect Mr. Vélez and his family. 94 The Commission therefore concludes that the State of Colombia did not adopt in a diligent manner and in good time the necessary measures to protect Mr. Vélez and his family from the threats and attacks brought to the attention of the authorities since September 11, 1996. Therefore, in light of its failure to guarantee these rights, the violation of the physical and moral integrity of Mr. Vélez and his family members is attributable to the State for omitting to implement effective means of protection despite having been notified and made aware of the risk run by the journalist and his family. 120. The State also failed to undertake an investigation that would permit the source of the threats against the Vélez Román family to be established and removed. The duty of state diligence implies that the investigation into the threats made against Mr. Vélez and his family should have been a preventive measure to stop the continuation and escalation of the threats.95 However, the criminal investigation into these facts, as has been mentioned, remained in a preliminary investigation stage until at least June 2009. 121. Based on these considerations, the Commission finds that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the personal integrity of the Vélez Román family by preventing and investigating the threats, acts of harassment and attempted kidnapping. 96 The Commission therefore concludes that in relation to these facts, the State of Colombia has violated Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, to the prejudice of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, and Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. B. Freedom of thought and Expression (Article 13 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 122. Article 13 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. […] 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. […] 94 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 11. Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010, Annex 5, Human Rights Council of the Presidency of the Republic, Letter to Gustavo Gallon in sua sponte reply of September 29, 1997, October 14, 1997, Interior Ministry, General Department Special Administrative Unit for Human Rights, letter to Foreign Relations Ministry, November 29, 1997. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para.101. 96 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 140-42.