172. A fourth probative element that provides indications about the possible involvement of the military are two decisions adopted in the disciplinary inquiries. The Court notes the State’s opposition to statements being assessed for these purposes that were made in decisions issued in the context of disciplinary investigations; investigation that, moreover had been closed for lack of merit (supra para. 154). The Court does not agree with this position, because neither the Commission nor the Court used these documents to establish individual disciplinary or criminal responsibilities, but rather to emphasize that those authorities identified indications of the possible connection between the threats and harassment, and the attack committed by soldiers against Mr. Restrepo in August 1996. In this regard, the Court notes that the “evaluation report” issued by the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General's Office in July 1998 stated that “the source of the threat can be found in the performance of his professional work as a cameraman, [because one of the events he filmed] was the peasants’ coca march in the municipality of Morelia in the department of Caquetá where he was attacked by uniformed personnel attached to the Battalion of the Twelfth Brigade based in Florencia” (supra para. 113). The decision of the Oversight Office of the Attorney General's Office of May 2002 (supra para. 114) is also worth noting in which, when it decided to close the investigation, it noted that “those who may have had an interest in harassing and threatening Mr. Vélez […] would be those who attacked him during the violent events that took place in the municipality of Morelia, Caquetá, on August 29, 1996.” There is no evidence that these indications noted by the said administrative bodies have been investigated in the criminal jurisdiction. 173. Finally, in relation to the affirmations concerning an alleged context of threats and violence by Colombian military forces to prevent investigations against their members 179 (supra para. 51), the Court considers that the evidence provided is insufficient to establish the contextual situations mentioned by the Commission and the representative as a fact in this case. 174. Based on all the foregoing, the Court observes that, in this case, the evidence is sufficient, reliable, and pertinent to prove the facts that are the subject of the analysis. 180 The Court has different concurring probative elements from which it is possible to find proved the connection between the threats, harassment and attempted deprivation of liberty, and the measures taken by Mr. Vélez Restrepo to obtain the investigation and punishment of the soldiers responsible for the attack he suffered on August 29, 1996. In addition, the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct a criminal investigation into these events. 175. Consequently, the Court concludes that State can be attributed with international responsibility owing to the participation of State agents in the threats, harassment and attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty perpetrated against Mr. Vélez and his family. C.1.d) Alleged violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention 179 The Commission argued that this case is circumscribed to the alleged context according to which the Colombian Armed Forces opposed investigations against their members, sometimes using threats and attacks. The representative alleged the existence of a context of “threats and violence […] against those who tried to use the Colombian judicial system to file complaints of this nature and against those that formed part of that system.” 180 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 127 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 113. 53