and claims alleged by the Commission and the representative relating to the relationship between Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his employer “are of a private dimension,” and if his labor rights had been affected, he should have sought out the mechanisms that existed in this regard. Considerations of the Court 209. The Court considers that the journalism can only be exercised freely when those who carry out this work are not victims of threats or physical, mental or moral attacks or other acts of harassment.201 Those acts constitute serious obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of expression.202 In this regard, the Court has already referred to the special obligation to protect journalists at risk (supra para. 194), which was not complied with in this case. In view of the attack of August 29, 1996, perpetrated to prevent Mr. Vélez Restrepo from exercising his freedom of expression, and the subsequent threats so that he cease pursuing his search to obtain justice owing to this attack, the State had the obligations to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish, as well as to adopt measures of protection, which were not complied with (supra paras. 186 to 205). 210. The Court finds that compliance with the said obligations is particularly relevant in cases such as this, in which the violations against the victim were related to the exercise of his right to freedom of expression when he was working as a cameraman covering a new item of public interest. 211. The State should have undertaken the compliance with its obligations of investigation and protection taking into account the reasonable connection between the attack motivated by the exercise of freedom of expression (supra paras. 78 to 81) and the subsequent threats and harassment that escalated into an attempted deprivation of liberty. The failure to comply with these obligations meant, first, that the attack motivated by the prevention of the exercise of freedom of expression of the journalist Vélez Restrepo went unpunished, and then that the subsequent threats aimed at ensuring that the attack was not investigated went unpunished. In addition, it meant that the State did not create the conditions or the due guarantees to protect the integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, which signified that, as a result of the attempted deprivation of liberty of which he was a victim, he was obliged to leave Colombia and to seek asylum in the United States of America, where his journalistic activities that entailed seeking, receiving and imparting information 203 were restricted and could not be exercised, at least as he had exercised them when working in Colombia for a national news program. 212. In this case, the Court considers that the impunity for the attack of August 29, 1996, and for the subsequent threats, harassment and attempted deprivation of liberty that resulted in the exile of journalist Vélez Restrepo were especially serious given the intimidating effect they could have on other journalists who cover news of public interest, which affects the information that is ultimately received by the members of society. The body of evidence contains evidence showing the broad coverage given by the media to the attack by soldiers on August 29, 1996, and also to Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s subsequent departure from the country on October 9, 1997 (supra paras. 81 and 96). The Court 201 Similarly, this Court, referring to the exercise of activities in defense of human rights, cf. Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, 81. 202 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Impunity, self-censorship and armed internal conflict: an analysis of the state of freedom of expression in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc. 51 of August 31, 2005, para. 102. 203 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 72. 62