facts to be placed in the “broader context of the human rights crisis in Colombia between 1995 and 1998,” and would “permit reviewing the allegation presented during the proceedings before the [Commission] that, on October 6, 199[7], Richard Vélez Restrepo survived a real ‘attempted forced disappearance’ rather than a mere ‘attempted kidnapping.’” 51. First, the Court has verified that in the sections entitled “The human rights crisis in Colombia”39 and “Forced disappearances”40 of the “Factual analysis” chapter of the pleadings and motions brief, the representative introduces general contextual facts and references that are not part of the factual framework described by the Commission. In addition, the Court considers that the facts included in the section “A situation of endemic impunity,”41 are also outside the factual framework, with the exception of the alleged context of “threats and violence […] directed against those who tried to use the Colombian judicial system to file complaints of this nature and against those who formed part of the latter,”42 because the this concurs with the above-mentioned contextual assertions made by the Commission in the Merits Report (supra para. 49). Regarding the facts included in the section entitled “The program to eradicate coca cultivation and peasant protests,”43 the Court notes that they related, above all, to other alleged abuses and violations of human rights supposedly committed by security forces between July and December of 1996, thus they fall outside the facts of this case. 52. Furthermore, the Court has verified that the Commission did not insert the fact of the attack perpetrated against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, within a context of violence against journalists by State agents. 44 The Court will only take into account the references to a possible context of special risk for journalists in Colombia to the extent that they are useful to analyze the State’s obligation to guarantee life and safety in relation to the supposed threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family that occurred after the attack of August 29, 1996. In this regard, the Court recalls that, during the public hearing in this case, it asked Colombia to provide useful information in relation to this alleged context,45 which the State provided with its final written arguments 53. The Court places the facts of the present case in context in order to understand them adequately and in order to rule on the State’s responsibility for the specific facts of this case, but, in doing so, it does not seek to rule on the diverse circumstances included in that context.46 39 Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 108 and 109). 40 Paragraphs 37 to 43 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 116 to 119). 41 Paragraphs 19 to 23 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 109 to 111). In addition, regarding the assertions included in paragraphs 19 to 22 (on the alleged impunity in Colombia), the State affirmed that they constitute “general assertions contained in the cited documents and do not explain facts that are related directly or indirectly to the case.” 42 Paragraph 23 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folio 111). 43 Paragraphs 24 to 31 of the pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome I, folios 111 to 114). 44 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 59, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 29. 45 The Court requested information on the threats, harassment, executions, and disappearances of which journalists may have been victims in the period between 1995 and 1998, the complaints that had been filed in this regard, and the corresponding actions taken by the State. 46 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 32, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 51. 19