22 violence by the demonstrators. It also alleged that it acted immediately and effectively to avoid greater damage and to investigate and punish those state agents responsible as direct perpetrators of the attack. 74 108. The Commission observes that as established by the Inter-American Court: The State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation 75 . 109. The Commission also reiterates that the international responsibility of the State arises immediately when the internationally illegal act attributed to it is committed, although, as the State of Colombia has correctly pointed out, it can only be demanded once the State has had the opportunity to correct it by its own means. 76 110. The Commission observes that in the case under review there is an abuse of public force, which led to the journalist's complete subjection to the de facto power of members of the Army who violently subdued him until rendering him defenseless, and in this state, indiscriminately beat him, causing him serious injuries. All the above, with the goal of preventing him from carrying out his work as a journalist and from denouncing the excessive use of force that was unfolding. The Commission considers that the attacks by state agents against Mr. Vélez constitute a violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.2, 77 and it must decide whether this violation is attributable in the international sphere to the State of Colombia, or whether, on the contrary, the State acted reasonably to prevent the violation, punish those responsible and make reparations to the victim. 111. In this respect, the Commission considers it sufficient to observe, without entering into a detailed analysis of the judicial proceedings undertaken --developed below in the section on Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention-- that the criminal justice system failed to render results. As will be explained infra, the criminal proceedings were undertaken in an inadequate jurisdiction --the military courts-- and did not accomplish the identification or punishment of any of those responsible for the August 29, 1996, attack, such that the only punishment imposed for these serious acts was the disciplinary sanction of a "severe reprimand" applied to two Army non-commissioned officers. In these circumstances, Colombia's position that there is no international responsibility because the State investigated and punished those responsible for the violation is untenable. On the contrary, the attack committed on Mr. Vélez by uniformed agents of the State of Colombia has not been duly clarified, punished or compensated. The Commission therefore declares that the State of Colombia has violated Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, with respect to the acts of aggression suffered by Mr. Vélez on August 29, 1996. 112. However, the Commission must also consider whether the State has violated Article 5 in relation to the acts of harassment, threats and attempted kidnapping suffered by Mr. Vélez and 74 See State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 18. 75 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para.174. 76 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para.75. 77 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para.149; Case of Servellón García et al. v Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para.99; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras.320 and 333.