beyond the factual framework. In addition, the Court finds that the evidence in this case does not prove that there were exceptional circumstances such having survived an attack in which the deprivation of life was attempted or a situation that posed a serious risk to life, taking into account the force used, the intention and purpose for using it, as well as the victims’ situation.190 Consequently, the Court concludes that there was no violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The attempted deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vélez has already been analyzed by the Court as part of the violations to the personal integrity of Mr. Vélez and his family. C.2) Obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife and children, by the investigation and the adoption of measures of protection Observations of the Commission and arguments of the parties 183. The Commission concluded that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the personal integrity of the Roman Vélez family by the prevention and investigation of the threats, harassment and attempted kidnapping. It argued that the State had violated the mental and moral integrity of Mr. Vélez and his family because it failed to adopt, in a “diligent and timely manner, the necessary measures to protect Mr. Vélez and his family owing to the threats and harassment reported to the authorities [repeatedly] as of September 11, 1996.” In addition, it affirmed that, “in addition, the State did not conduct an investigation to clarify and deactivate the source of the harassment against the Roman Vélez family.” The Commission emphasized that “the investigations are the most important measure of protection for journalists who are threatened for carrying out their work” and that “the State itself acknowledges that there was no effective investigation.” 184. The representative stated that “he agree[d] fully with the Inter-American Commission” regarding the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention. 185. Colombia maintained that “once the alleged threats and intimidation were brought to the attention of the competent authorities on October 6, 1997, the State, through the Protection Program of the Ministry of the Interior, immediately provided various means of protection [… and,] three days later, […] Mr. Vélez […] decided to leave the country of his own volition.” In addition, it argued that “[p]rior to the supposed attempted kidnapping on October 6, 1997, Mr. Vélez had never requested protection or a safety assessment from the State.” Considerations of the Court 186. The Court has established that the obligation of guarantee covers the legal obligation to “take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations, to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishments, and to ensure adequate reparation for the victim.” The decisive factor is to determine whether “a specific violation […] has occurred with the support or tolerance of the public authorities, or whether the latter have acted in such a way that the violation has been committed without any 190 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 127 and 128. Similarly, cf. ECHR. Makaratzis v. Greece [Grand Chamber], No. 50385/99, December 20, 2004, paras. 51 and 55, and Ismail Altun v. Turkey, No. 22932/02, September 21, 2004, para. 64. 56