their son Mateo or the whole family. According to the testimony of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Roman Amariles, as well as the expert opinion of the psychiatrist Kessler, during periods of constant threats, the latter and the children Mateo and Juliana had to live “confined to the house” and Mateo felt the constant fear experienced by his mother. In addition, Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Roman Amariles had to take measures to protect themselves, such as moving house and changing Mateo’s school, with all the emotional consequences that this implied. Added to this, Mr. Vélez Restrepo had trouble sleeping and had nightmares, which consequently affected his wife. Mrs. Roman Amariles stated before the Court that this situation also affected their “life as a couple” and that the family had to seek psychological help. Mr. Vélez Restrepo, Mrs. Roman Amariles, and their son Mateo received psychological treatment for eight months starting on September 10, 1996.186 179. Also, in their testimony before this Court, Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Roman Amariles expressed the great fear, anguish and distress that the events of October 6, 1997, caused to them and their children Mateo and Juliana, when Mr. Vélez Restrepo was able to escape from the individuals who tried to deprive him of his liberty and arrived home shouting that they wanted to kill him. They explained that, owing to the seriousness of the situation, they had to leave the house in which they lived and their belongings and, for the three following days, had to stay in different places. 180. In order to rule on the violation of personal integrity, the Court takes into consideration that the expert appraisal of the psychiatrist Kessler, carried out between November 2011 and January 2012, diagnosed that Mr. Vélez Restrepo, Mrs. Román Amariles and their son Mateo Vélez Román suffered from a chronic disorder due to posttraumatic stress and major depression, and that Juliana suffers from chronic mild depression, which is due to the attack on Mr. Vélez on August 29, 1996, the threats, intimidation and attempted deprivation of liberty, but also, to a great extent, is related to the consequences of having had to leave Colombia to live in the United States of America as asylees.187 181. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Roman Amariles, Mateo Vélez Román and Juliana Vélez Román. C.1.e) Alleged violation of Article 4(1) (Right to Life) 188 of the Convention 182. Regarding the representative’s allegation, disputed by the State, 189 that the said attempted deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vélez Restrepo was a violation of the right to life as it involved an “attempted forced disappearance,” the Court recalls that the assertions concerning the alleged context of forced disappearances in Colombia (supra para. 51) are 186 Certification issued on July 4, 1997, by Dr. Constanza Velásquez, in which she “[…] certifies that, from September 10, 1996, to May 16, 1997, she provided psychological treatment to the VELEZ ROMAN FAMILY […]. During which, [referring to the sessions] an assessment, tests, and management of anxiety, depression and stress, and relaxation were carried out” (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 29, folio 167). 187 Cf. expert opinion provided by affidavit by Carol L. Kessler on February 18, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 947 to 961). 188 Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[E]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 189 Colombia argued the lack of evidence to affirm that “there was an attempted forced disappearance,” and that “the supposed generalized context of violence against journalists cannot per se give rise to a violation of the right to life.” 55