notion of restricting the exercise of the State’s power is necessarily included in the protection of human rights.151 The obligation to guarantee is derived from the general obligation of guarantee indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention together with the substantive right protected in this treaty that must be safeguarded, protected or guaranteed, and entails the positive obligation of the State to adopt a series of conducts, depending on the specific substantive right that must be guaranteed and the specific situation in question.152 This obligation entails the duty of the States to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of legally ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.153 B) The facts concerning the attack of August 29, 1996 B.1) Violation of the right to personal integrity 127. According to its acknowledgment of responsibility, the State is responsible for the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo by members of the Army on August 29, 1996, while he was recording the events of one of the “coca marches” in Caquetá, in the exercise of his functions as a cameraman of a national news program (supra paras. 14, 78 to 83). Colombia acknowledged that these actions of the State agents violated the obligation to respect Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s right to personal integrity. 128. Regarding the violation of the right to personal integrity of Aracelly Román Amariles and Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, argued only by the representative, in its final written arguments the State extended its acknowledgment of responsibility to consider them also as victims of the violation of this right, owing to the facts of the attack of August 29, 1996 (supra paras. 13 and 14(a)). In this regard, the representative stated that this attack “also caused deep distress to [Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s] family (his wife and children), who feared for the life and well-being of their husband and father.” In this regard, in her testimony before this Court, Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s wife recounted the anguish she suffered when she learned through the media of the attack on her husband and that he had been taken to a hospital. Her son, Mateo Vélez Román, was with her and saw the images transmitted by the media. The opinion of expert witness Kessler relates how these events affected Mateo, who recalls the images broadcast on television and the anguish of his mother, who was holding his younger sister Juliana. 129. Despite this acknowledgment, the State disputed the conclusions of the Commission regarding the gravity or severity of the injuries sustained by Mr. Vélez Restrepo as a result of the attack of August 29, 1996, his recovery time, and the Commission’s assessment of the evidence to reach such conclusions. 130. In the Merits Report, the Commission alleged that Mr. Vélez Román was “indiscriminately beat[en] causing him serious injuries,” and that this attack constituted a violation “of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)” of this 151 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 46. 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 165, 166 and 176, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 127. 153 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 166, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 16(6). 41