treaty, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo. In this report, the Commission found it proved that “owing to the attack, [Mr. Vélez Restrepo] suffered a ruptured liver, the loss of one testicle, and several broken ribs and was hospitalized for several days and then on disability leave at home for an additional two weeks.” In its final written observations, when referring to these injuries, it indicated that “Mr. Vélez suffered significant injuries, was hospitalized, and on disability leave for two weeks.” 131. For his part, in the pleadings and motions brief, the victims’ representative argued that “[t]he attack caused serious harm to the physical integrity of Richard Velez: he was hospitalized immediately and declared unfit to perform any activity for two weeks.” Also, in his observations on the preliminary objection, he stated that “[i]t is true that the [medical] reports […] do not reflect the description of the injuries […] included in the Merits Report,” but that “there is no doubt that Mr. Vélez [Restrepo] was severely injured as a result of the beating he suffered.” 132. Based on the reports and medical records provided as evidence by the Commission, the Court found it proved that Mr. Vélez Restrepo was admitted to the emergency department of a certain hospital in Florencia, Caquetá, and that, the same night, he was transferred to a clinic in Bogota, where he was interned for one day and where medical diagnoses and tests were performed, which showed that his liver and pancreas were normal, and that there were no thoracic or abdominal injuries. The Court also found it proved that he given a two-week disability leave at his residence and that, when he went to the said clinic in Bogota for a control visit, Mr. Vélez Restrepo reported having insomnia, but had no physical injuries (supra para. 82). Consequently, the Court finds no evidence to substantiate the supposed injuries mentioned by the Commission in the Merits Report, indicating that Mr. Vélez Restrepo had suffered from a “perforated liver, the loss of one testicle, and several broken ribs”; moreover, it has not been proved that he remained hospitalized for more than one day. 133. When, testifying before this Court during the public hearing, Mr. Velez Restrepo told the Court that, when the said attack occurred, he felt intense pain in his chest, abdomen and testicles. The Court understands that, in saying this, Mr. Velez Restrepo did not intend to contradict the said documentary evidence, but rather, as the victim of the attack, he described the pain he felt, which is consistent with the diagnosis on his admission to the hospital in Florencia, Caquetá, from which, where legible, it is possible to see that it was noted that Mr. Vélez Restrepo was admitted “with multiple blows to the abdomen with a blunt instrument” and that he had “acute localized pain.” 134. The Court considers that the new allegations introduced by the victims’ representatives in his observations on the acknowledgment of responsibility and in his final arguments classifying what happened to Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, “as an act of torture” are inadmissible, because they are time-barred. 135. Based on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the preceding findings, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect the right to personal integrity of Mr. Velez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, which constitutes a violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B) Violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression 42