31 also with their family and friends that remained in it. 121 In the same sense, in the case of Goiburú et al., the Court declared a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in part based on the suffering caused to a victim and their immediate family who were forced to leave their country into exile. 122 143. The Commission has also stressed that the actions of the State which have the effect, even if indirectly, of separating individuals from their families and children may constitute violations of the protection of the family and the rights of the child. 123 144. In the present case, the Commission has found that the threats and acts of harassment against Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and his family, culminating in the attempted kidnapping on October 6, 1997, forced the journalist to leave Colombia for exile in the United States of America. It also found that the Vélez Román family was separated for almost one year, until Aracelly Román Amariles was finally able to leave for exile with her children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román in September 1998. Finally, the Commission has stated that the separation and forced exile that the Vélez Román family experienced produced profound effects on the plans for the family members' lives, on their economic situation, and on their relationship amongst themselves and with other family members in Colombia. The dangerous situation confronted by the family had a particular impact on the children, Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, who were forced to leave school, live apart from their father, and move homes and city within Colombia before going into exile. 145. As has been observed, the Commission considers that in this case the State of Colombia not only incurred direct responsibility for the threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez and his family, but also failed to fulfill its obligations of protection and investigation in a timely way. In this sense, both the acts of harassment in themselves as well as their foreseeable consequences, inter alia, exile, are attributable to the State. The Commission therefore finds that the State of Colombia violated Article 22.1 of the Convention to the prejudice of Mr. Vélez, Aracelly Román Amariles and Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. 146. The State alleged with regard to Articles 17.1 and 19 of the Convention that the petitioners confused the violation of these rights with the possibility for Aracelly Román Amariles, Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román to allege violations of other rights. However, the Commission observes that the acts and omissions of the State of Colombia had profound and undeniable consequences on the Vélez Román family's lives. All members of the family had to resort to psychological therapy based on the situation in which they were living after August 29, 1996, and in the case of Mr. Vélez and his wife, they had to seek special therapy to overcome the damage inflicted on their family relationship. The family also had to live apart and in a situation of profound economic and emotional uncertainty for almost one year, while Mr. Vélez awaited a decision on his asylum application in the United States, and thus the possibility of being reunited with his family in that country. Up until the present time, their exile has forced them to live in a highly precarious economic position, separated from their family in Colombia. The Commission considers that, in the circumstances described, these consequences were foreseeable by the State of Colombia, 124 and 121 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para.141. 122 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 99(a)-(c), and 101(a). 123 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al., United States, July 12, 2010, paras.48, 59, 60. 124 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al., United States, July 12, 2010, para.48. See also, IACHR, Report No. 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock, United States, July 25, 2008, paras.7679.