16 general, that the evidence presented is sufficient, varied, apt, trustworthy and relevant to demonstrate the facts that are the object of this analysis. 28 89. In relation to the death threats, acts of harassment and attempted kidnapping alleged in the present case, the IACHR observes that among the pieces of evidence submitted by the petitioners are: the statements of Mr. Vélez, of Mrs. Román, and of one of Mr. Vélez's coworkers 29 ; a letter sent to the Procurator General of the Nation's Office by Mr. Vélez's employer 30 ; a copy of a written threat; 31 State documents certifying approval of protective measures for the Vélez Román family; 32 and a decision of the Procurator General’s Office that registers as a "fact" the harassment by armed individuals who came to Mr. Vélez's home on September 24, 1997. 33 The Commission also observes that the State has acknowledged providing protection for the Vélez Román family beginning in October 1997, and having initiated disciplinary and criminal proceedings based on the complaints about the threats to the family and Mr. Vélez's attempted kidnapping. 34 The respective criminal investigations have not been completed and are still pending 14 years after the first complaints. In consequence, the IACHR considers that the evidence is varied and consistent and in accordance with the abovementioned standard of proof in the Inter-American system, concludes that after August 29, 1996, Mr. Vélez and his family suffered a series of threats and acts of harassment culminating in an attempted kidnapping on October 6, 1997. 90. The Commission also considers that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that these acts are linked to the attack suffered by Mr. Vélez on August 29, 1996, and with his subsequent actions aimed at propeling the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the attack. In effect, as explained below, this conclusion is not only reasonable in light of various pieces of evidence, but also that there is no alternative hypothesis to be drawn from the file of the case that might explain the threats and acts of harassment culminating in the actions of the State of Colombia itself so that the journalist could leave the country. In addition, the Commission considers it reasonable to presume that the threats, acts of harassment and the attempted kidnapping originated from state agents involved in the attack against Mr. Vélez, a presumption that has not been overcome by the State. In this respect, it is relevant to mention that the Procurator General's Office itself considered that the threats against Mr. Vélez, as well as the attempted kidnapping, were motivated by his profession, specifically mentioning his filming of the peasants' coca march in 28 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para.113. 29 Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, Annex 1, Sworn statement of Mr. Vélez Restrepo; Annex 2, Sworn Statement of Mrs. Román Amariles. Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010, Annex 2, National Public Prosecutor’s Office, Statement of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, August 27, 1997; Annex 4, Procurator General of the Nation's Office, National Department of Special Investigations, Human Rights Unit, Statement of Eduin Yesid Cristancho Merchan, October 17, 1997; Annex 8, Procurator General of the Nation's Office, National Department of Special Investigations, Antioquia Section, Statement of Aracelly Román Amariles, February 2, 1998. 30 Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, Annex 30, Hans Sarmiento's Letter, Chief Editor, Noticias Colombia Program, to Dr. Ramón Alberto Puentes, National Director of Special Investigations, Procurator General of the Nation's Office, September 11, 1996. 31 Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, Annex 37, written threat received by Mr. Vélez on October 5, 1997. 32 Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, Annex 35, Letter of Luis Manuel Lasso Lozano, Case Coordinator, Office of the Human Rights Presidential, to Raúl Hernández, July 6, 1998; Annex 36, Evidence of Submission, Interior Ministry, Office of the General Director of the Special Administrative Human Rights Unit, Petitioners’ Brief received on September 8, 2010; Annex 6, letter to Foreign Relations Ministry, November 29, 1997. 33 Petitioners’ Brief received on October 4, 2006, Annex, Procurator General of the Nation, Inspectorate, automatic archiving, filing No. No. 030-54410/2001, May 3, 2002. 34 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 10. See also p. 11, 20.