(Right to Freedom of Expression and Thought) of the Convention to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo as a result of this attack. However, the Court notes that Colombia contested the facts relating to the injuries that the Commission and the representative alleged that Mr. Vélez Restrepo had suffered as a result of this attack on August 29, 1996. Colombia also contested the alleged violation of the social dimension of the right to freedom of thought and expression as a result of the said events of August 29, 1996. 23. The Court also understands that, since the State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention owing to the lack of a “serious investigation that would allow the determination and criminal punishment of the perpetrators” of the said attacks on August 29, 1996, and of the subsequent supposed threats and harassment, the dispute has ceased with regard to the violation of these articles based on the lack of due diligence in the said investigations. Nevertheless, the dispute subsists with regard to the alleged violation of the right to a natural judge, given that the State does not acknowledge its alleged violation because the investigation into the events of August 29, 1996, was conducted by the military criminal justice system. Regarding the investigation into the attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty of October 6, 1997, the State acknowledged the violation of “reasonable time” in the investigation into the offense of attempted kidnapping, but did not expressly indicate that it acknowledged a violation owing to the “lack of due diligence” in the investigation alleged by the Inter-American Commission; therefore, the Court will rule in this regard (infra para. 251) 24. Furthermore, the dispute subsists regarding the State’s alleged responsibility for the violation of Articles 5 and 13 of the American Convention as a result of the alleged threats, harassment, and attempted deprivation of liberty that took place after the events of August 29, 1996, since Colombia argues that there is insufficient evidence that such events took place, and also that the participation of State agents in such events and the causal nexus between the attack on August 29, 1996, and the presumed subsequent threats has not been proved. The State also argues that it has complied with its obligation to offer measures of protection to Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family following the specific request made by Mr. Vélez Restrepo to “the competent authorities” on October 6, 1997. In addition, Colombia did not acknowledge the violations alleged by the Commission and the representative of Articles 22(1) (Freedom of Movement and Residence), 17(1) (Rights of the Family) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife Mrs. Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. The dispute also subsists with regard to the violation alleged by the representative of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo owing to the alleged “forced disappearance attempt” in relation to the events that occurred on October 6, 1997, described by the Inter-American Commission as an “attempted kidnapping.” The State also did not acknowledge the violation alleged by the representative of Article 11(1) (Right to honor and dignity) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo “as a result” of the “persistent” alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 25. In the preceding paragraphs, the Court has indicated the facts and legal claims that the State has acknowledged with regard to the violation of Articles 5, 13, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. The State also acknowledged as victims both Mr. Vélez Restrepo, and also his wife, Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, as previously indicated. Regarding the claims for reparations, the State expressed its willingness to repair fully the harm caused by the violations that it had acknowledged, but contested “the requested reparation of reopening the criminal investigations into personal injuries and threats that had prescribed.” Colombia also referred to the reparations it considers it has been complying with and with which it will continue to comply. As for the other reparations requested, the State indicated that it defers to the decision of the Court. 11