RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS A) General considerations of the Court 123. In this chapter, the Court considers it necessary to identify the reasons that establish international responsibility in this case and to rule on the matters in dispute, taking into account that the State’s acceptance of the facts and acknowledgment of international responsibility is partial. Chapter III described the terms in which the State accepted some of the facts submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction by the Inter-American Commission and partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violations of Articles 5146 and 13147 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román (supra paras. 13 to 17). Colombia disagrees with the Commission and the representative regarding the severity of the violation of the right to personal integrity against Mr. Vélez Restrepo for the attack of August 29, 1996, and did not acknowledge the alleged violation of the social dimension of the right to freedom of thought and expression. Furthermore, the State did not acknowledge responsibility for the events subsequent to August 29, 1996, relating to threats and harassment, or for the attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vélez Restrepo that took place on October 6, 1997, or for the departure from the country of the members of the Vélez Román family. 124. The Court will divide the legal analysis into two sections, and will first address the legal consequences of the attack of August 29, 1996, and then the incidents that occurred after that date. 125. The analysis of the acknowledged violations as well as those that are disputed requires the Court to determine whether the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights referred to in the preceding paragraph.148 The Court has established that, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and guarantee the human rights recognized therein. 149 It has also indicated that the State's international responsibility is based on acts or omissions of any power or organ of the State, irrespective of its rank, that violate the American Convention.150 126. The Court has held that, under this article, the first obligation assumed by the States Parties is “to respect the rights and freedoms” recognized in the Convention. Thus, the 146 The relevant part of Article 5 of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment […].” 147 The first subparagraph of Article 13 of the American Convention establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.” 148 Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.“ 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 165 and 166, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 126. 150 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 173, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 45. 40