21 101. Finally, in the contentious administrative courts, in 1998, the Vélez Román family began a procedure for preliminary administrative conciliation before the Contentious Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, based on the events of August 29, as well as on the subsequent threats. 70 The petitioners rejected the offer of reparations, equal to an indemnity of approximately 1,200 US dollars, made by the State. 71 IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW 102. The Commission will analyze whether in the present case there has been a violation of Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 17.1 (protection of the family), 19 (rights of the child), 22.1 (right to freedom of movement and residence), 8 (judicial guarantees) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the said Treaty. 103. The Commission will not examine Articles 4, 11, and 22.5 of the American Convention, violations of which were alleged by the petitioners at the merits stage, taking into account that in its Admissibility Report No. 47/08, the Commission did not admit the present case in respect to the above Articles. 72 A. Right to Humane Treatment (Article 5 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 104. Article 5 of the American Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 105. Both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("Court" or "Inter-American Court"), as well as other tribunals and international authorities, have found that there is a universal prohibition both against torture as well as other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, independently of any legislation or declaration. 73 106. In the present case, the IAHCR must consider, in the first place and in light of the proven facts, if the attack suffered by Mr. Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, violated the State of Colombia's obligations enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. 107. It is worth reiterating that the State has acknowledged that the attack suffered by Mr. Vélez was perpetrated by members of the National Army. The State does not deny that this aggression threatened Mr. Vélez's physical integrity; however, it argued that it did not violate Article 5 of the Convention. In particular, it alleged that the State acted in a preventive way to avoid any excess of the Security Forces at the time of controlling the demonstration and responding to acts of 70 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 44. Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, p. 23; Annex 20, Request for Preliminary Administrative Settlement for the personal injuries and harassment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez et al. 71 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 44. Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, p. 23. 72 IACHR, Report No. 47/08 (Admissibility), Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and Family, Colombia, July 24, 2008, para.91. 73 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para.70; IACHR, Report No. 117/09 (Merits) Case 12.228, Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd, Mexico, November 12, 2009, para.35.