8 effective damage suffered - including the withdrawal of Mr. Vélez from his profession, his forced exile, the moral and psychological damage to the journalist and his family - and thus the preliminary contentious administrative proceedings came to an end. 43. They indicate that the said proceeding does not constitute adequate means to compensate violations of human rights and it is not necessary to exhaust it, for which they decided not to continue with the proceedings. 5. Ordinary Criminal Proceedings before the Public Prosecutor 44. The petitioners state that the National Public Prosecutor has not indicted anyone allegedly responsible for the acts perpetrated against the petitioners, i.e.: the attack carried out by military personnel on August 29, 1996, in the Municipality of Morelia, Department of Caquetá, against Mr. Vélez Restrepo; the threats and harassment directed against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, despite lodging complaints on two occasions about such acts before the Public Prosecutor; and the "attempted forced disappearance" that occurred on October 6, 1997. 45. The petitioners allege that they lodged multiple and specific complaints before the Attorney General's Office and the Public Prosecutor providing direct information relating to the threats and harassment they were suffering. They also alleged that: a) in September 1996, they sent a letter to the Procurator General of the Nation's Office because individuals pretending to be officials of the said office came to the Vélez family home to enquire about the whereabouts and schedule of the journalist; b) in October 1996 they went to the Public Prosecutor's Office to relate the death threats; and c) in August 1997, Mr. Vélez again notified the Public Prosecutor of the death threats and that he and his family were in danger. According to the petitioners, the Public Prosecutor assured them that their complaints would form part of a large investigation being undertaken against military personnel. 46. The petitioners state that, apart from the above complaints, they also lodged similar complaints with the Special Administrative Unit for Human Rights of the Interior Ministry and the Presidential Council for Human Rights in September and October 1997. Given the serious risk he was running, said request gave rise to the adoption of certain protective measures, but did not give impetus in any way to the existing criminal investigations. 47. The petitioners allege that the only thing they are aware of is that an investigation was underway for the crime of kidnapping before the Public Prosecutor of Medellín, in the Crimes against Freedom Unit, the final result of which was never known. On the International Responsibility of the State 48. In their arguments on the merits, the petitioners point out that the acts complained of represent violations of Articles 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 17, 22 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 to the prejudice of Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo; and Articles 5, 8, 17, 22 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1.1 to the prejudice of Aracelly Román Amariles; and Articles 5, 17, 19, 22 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Article 1.1 to the prejudice of Mateo Vélez Román and Juliana Vélez Román. 49. The petitioners requested in this regard a series of reparations, inter alia: that the State acknowledge responsibility and make a public apology; that the State make reparations to the family for the damages suffered, including the moral damage and the cost of medical and psychological treatment; that the State inform the petitioners of the position of the judicial proceedings relating to the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996, the subsequent threats and harassment, and the "attempted kidnapping and assassination" against Mr. Vélez, as