30 138. In view of the above, it is necessary to repeat that the State did not act swiftly and diligently to protect Mr. Vélez in the face of a known situation of risk, nor did it effectively investigate the threats and acts of aggression that he suffered. It was in this situation of vulnerability that Mr. Vélez suffered the attempted kidnapping that forced him to leave the country and with it, his profession as a journalist. Mr. Vélez's forced exile meant that he could not continue searching for and disseminating information about events in his country, as he had done as a cameraman covering events of great public interest. Due to the reprisals against him as a journalist, he was forced to abandon journalism. In this sense, the Commission considers that the absence of protection and investigation in the face of the threats and acts of aggression suffered by Mr. Vélez, which caused a definitive break with journalism due to his exile, constituted an additional breach of his freedom of thought and expression in violation of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to Article 1.1. C. Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 22.1 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention), Protection of the Family (Article 17.1 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention) and The Rights of the Child (Article 19 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 139. Article 22.1 of the American Convention provides that "[e]very person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law." For its part, Article 17.1 of the Convention provides that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state", and Article 19 provides that "[e]very minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state." 140. Article 22 of the American Convention, enshrining the right to free movement and residence, establishes the right to enter, remain, and leave the State territory without unlawful interference. 117 The Inter-American Court has established that the right to free movement and residence: may be affected when a person is the victim of threats or harassment and the State does not provide the guarantees necessary to allow him/her to move freely and reside in the territory in question, even when those threats and harassments are carried out by non-State actors. 118 141. Thus, in the case of Valle Jaramillo, the Court found a violation of Article 22.1 of the Convention to the prejudice of various persons who were forced into exile "without being able or wishing to return home due to a well-founded fear of persecution". 119 Equally, in the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, the Court declared that the temporary exile of the victim's immediate family, caused by threats surrounding his search for justice, constituted a violation of Article 22 of the Convention. 120 142. In this case, the Court also referred to the social, family and economic impact that leaving for exile had on these individuals, when finding that their condition as refugees broke the fabric that united their families, forcing them to lose contact with not only with their country, but 117 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para.138. 118 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para.139. 119 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paras.140, 141, and 144. 120 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para.202.