28 129. In the present case, it has been established that members of the Colombian National Army surrounded and physically assaulted journalist Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo to prevent him from continuing to film the actions of military personnel and to confiscate the recorded material. This means that the aggressors realized that Mr. Vélez had filmed images of soldiers physically abusing defenseless demonstrators, images that were widely broadcast subsequently. The Colombian Army itself concluded that these acts of aggression constituted an "attempt against the freedom of expression". 109 However, the State of Colombia argued that the circumstances of the present case did not violate Article 13 of the Convention, due to the fact that the attack on Mr. Vélez did not achieve its aim of preventing the broadcasting of the material obtained by Mr. Vélez in the context of the march, thanks in part to the intervention of other members of the Security Forces who broke up the attack. 130. The Commission cannot accept the State's argument. In the present case, the State itself recognized that agents of the State of Colombia brutally attacked a journalist with the explicit goal of preventing his professional activity of finding and disseminating information of great public interest. His attackers effectively succeeded in breaking his camera and interrupting his work as a journalist, thus violating his right to seek information. Although his attackers did not succeed in preventing the broadcast of the recorded material, it is clear that the attack, by its motives and nature, represented a serious risk to the possibility of Mr. Vélez's disseminating information regarding the behavior of the armed forces in the context of the demonstration. The circumstance that the recorded material survived the attack was a matter of pure chance, a fact that cannot excuse the behavior of the state agents. 110 The Commission therefore considers that the State of Colombia violated Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, when its agents attacked Mr. Vélez with the intention and result of impeding his work as a journalist. 131. The Commission also notes the particular seriousness of the circumstances of the attack, especially the fact that it was caused by Mr. Vélez filming the abuses committed by military personnel, abuses that led to the application of disciplinary measures against members of the Army. The Commission observes that the acts of intimidation against journalists, particularly murders and physical assaults, limit the freedom of expression not only of journalists, but of all citizens, since they produce an intimidating effect on the free flow of information. This occurs as a result of the fear generated by reporting on abuses of power, illegal activities or other irregularities against society. 111 These considerations apply in full to the attack suffered by Mr. Vélez on August 29, 2006, which, it is appropriate to reiterate, was motivated by the fact that he filmed images and subsequently reported on abuses of power by the National Army. 132. With respect to the threats, acts of harassment and attempted kidnapping suffered by Mr. Vélez, the Commission again points out that it has found the State responsible for these acts (supra). The Commission must now examine whether this situation constituted an additional violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 133. In this regard, the Commission observes that Principle 9 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression of the IACHR states that: 109 State’s brief received on June 2, 2010, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 012 of August 30, 1996. 110 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of la Rochela v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, paras. 126-7. 111 2006 Joint Declaration of the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, the OSCE Representative for the Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Expression and the Special Rapporteur of the African Commission on Human Rights and of the Peoples for the Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.