Vélez Restrepo. At the same time, the aforementioned threats could likewise constitute a violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim, his wife and children. 88. Moreover, the IACHR believes that the allegations of fact related to the forced exile to which the alleged victims were subjected following the attack and the threats, the impossibility of returning to Colombia, and the consequences of this situation in the nuclear family, should they be proven, could tend to constitute a violation of Articles 22(1) (freedom of movement and residence) and 17(1) (protection of the family), to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and Aracelly Román Amariles and their children, Mateo Vélez Román and Juliana Vélez Román. The IACHR likewise understands that the son and daughter of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Román Amariles were children at the time the events occurred, for which the allegations concerning the failure to fulfill the duty to adopt special protection measures in keeping with their status as children, should they be proven, could tend to constitute a violation of Article 19 of the Convention. 89. Moreover, in the view of the Commission, the arguments related to the impunity for human rights violations alleged by the petitioners are not manifestly groundless and could give rise to the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims, in relation to Article 2 of that treaty. 90. Lastly, the IACHR considers that it is not in possession of sufficient elements concerning the allegations put forth by the petitioners that would give rise to the admissibility of a possible violation of the rights to life (Article 4), personal liberty (Article 7) and honor (Article 11). V. CONCLUSION 91. The Commission concludes that the petition is admissible and that it is competent to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioners concerning the presumed violation of Articles 5 (right to personal integrity), 13 (right to freedom of thought and expression), 17(1) (protection of the family), 19 (rights of the child), 22(1) (right to freedom of movement and residence), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, in the terms set forth in this report. 92. In virtue of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging on the merits of the matter, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible in relation to Articles 5 (right to personal integrity), 13 (right to freedom of thought and expression), 17(1) (protection of the family), 19 (rights of the child), 22(1) (freedom of movement and residence), 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, in the terms set forth in this report. 2. To forward this report to the petitioners and to the State. 3. To continue its examination of the merits of the case. 4. To publish the instant report and include it in Commission’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 24th day of July 2008. (Signed): Paolo G. Carozza, Chairman; Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, First Vice-Chairwoman; Felipe González, Second Vice- 14