195. Taking into account the context described and the specific situation of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, the Court considers that, prior to October 6, 1997, he clearly faced real and immediate risk to his personal integrity, as did the members of his family. The Court considers, above all, that this was a journalist who sought and disseminated information of public interest (supra paras. 77 to 81), who was attacked by soldiers when he was obtaining such information and who, following this, was the target of threats and harassment. The Court has indicated that there were reasonable motives to presume that these last events could have been related to the measures he took to obtain the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the attack. In addition, the public declarations of two ministers stating that the attack on Mr. Vélez Restrepo was an act that would not be tolerated by the Government and that should be punished (supra para. 83) could have had an impact on the perpetrators of the threats fearing that they would be investigated and punished. 196. A dispute exists as to whether the State knew of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s particular situation of risk prior to October 6, 1997, when the attempted deprivation of liberty took place, (supra para. 94), and whether it should have adopted measures of protection previously. Colombia bases its position on the fact that “the alleged threats and intimidation were reported to the competent authorities on October 6, 1997,” and, as of that date, the State “immediately provided different means of protection.” Colombia affirmed that, three days later, “Mr. Vélez […] decided to leave the country of his own volition.” The InterAmerican Commission stated that “the Colombian State was aware of the harassment and threats to Mr. Vélez and his family since September 11, 1996,” and that, prior to October 6, 1997, Mr. Vélez Restrepo had recourse “to the State, at difference times and in different ways, in view of the threats against him, his wife, and even his son.” 197. From an analysis of the body of evidence in this case, the Court can conclude that, as of mid-September 1996, State authorities were aware of the threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez and his family, and also that a State official had signed a note advising an agency responsible for providing security of the situation of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family (supra para. 86 and 109). 198. On September 11, 1996, the Editor-in-Chief of Noticiero Colombia 12:30 sent a letter to the Special Investigations Unit of the Attorney General’s Office reporting an act of harassment and asking that the situation be clarified, “in view of the anguish of the family of the cameraman Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo.” In this regard, it is on record that Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his wife were interviewed that month by officials of the Human Rights Unit of the Attorney General’s Office with regard to those facts (supra para. 109). Furthermore, in the statement made by Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 27, 1997, before the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation for the offense of threats, it is recorded that he was asked about the threats received the previous year (supra para. 117). In addition, at the end of September and on October 3, 1997, (supra paras. 90 and 92), the Colombian Commission of Jurists and Mr. Vélez Restrepo, personally, sent communications to State authorities informing them of the situation that he and his family faced. 199. It is also highly relevant that, in September 1996, the Head of the Human Rights Unit of the Attorney General's Office had informed the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) of the situation of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family. The case file of the criminal investigations into the threats contains a note dated September 24, 1996, that the Director of this Unit sent to the Director of the DAS, indicating that Mr. Vélez Restrepo “was Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 172. 59