227. It is especially important for this case to recall that the Court has established that “[t]he child has the right to live with his family, which is called upon to satisfy his material, affective, and psychological needs.”225 228. The Court considers that the threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family as of September 1996 and the failure to adopt opportune protection measures entailed the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide protection against arbitrary or illegal interferences in the family. In addition, the Court finds that since Mr. Vélez Restrepo had to leave the country first and the Vélez Román family was separated for almost a year, the enjoyment of coexistence between the members of this family was severely affected. Mr. Vélez Restrepo had to leave the country first, and the family was able to reunite once they obtained the approval of the asylum request from the United States authorities. 229. During that entire time, Mr. Vélez Restrepo had to remain alone in the United States of America, while he waited for this approval. This meant that Mrs. Román Amariles had to take care of their children Mateo and Juliana under particularly difficult emotional and financial circumstances, as well as insecurity. They had to leave their home in Bogotá without their belongings and move to Medellín to live in the homes of family members. According to the testimony of Mrs. Román Amariles, she was very afraid for the safety of herself and her children in view of the possibility that the threats could be carried out. Even though Colombia stated that it had offered financial assistance to the Vélez Roman family for three months, this Court did not receive sufficient evidence to prove that it had in fact provided this assistance to the family; to the contrary, in her testimony, Mrs. Román Amariles explained that, since she did not have the necessary financial resources to maintain her two children, she had to leave Mateo with his paternal grandmother and only visit him on weekends. 230. The Court considers that those facts specifically violate the right of the boy, Mateo, and the girl, Juliana, to live with their family and, consequently to have their material, affective, and psychological needs satisfied. Also, the evidence proves the severity of the consequences on the life and stability of the boy, Mateo, who not only had to experience the threats against his family, and the move to a different home and city, but also the separation from his father, and from his mother and sister. Psychiatrist Kessler’s expert opinion reveals that this separation had special repercussion on Mateo, who did not understand why they had to be apart and, even when he tried to be strong to avoid causing his mother more concerns, “he was very distressed each Sunday when he had to say goodbye to her after their weekend meeting to go back to his grandmother’s house and to school.” The expert witness indicated that events such as the threats, the flight from his home in Bogotá, and the separation from his father and mother caused “traumas” in Mateo’s life that made him feel powerless and under the threat that he or his family could be injured or murdered; she added that “[s]tudies show that traumas of this nature have an impact on a child’s neurophysiology, his behavior, and the way he perceives his surroundings.” 231. In addition, the testimony given by Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Román Amariles and the expert assessment of psychiatrist Kessler reveal, inter alia, the effect that the absence of opportune measures of protection and the subsequent separation of the family had on both the family’s coexistence and the married life of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and Mrs. Román Amariles. 225 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, para. 71, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 46. 67