Vélez Restrepo] of the television news program Noticiero 12:30, an action that violates the provisions of freedom of the press” (supra para. 102). 143. This Court has also noted that, when making its partial acknowledgment of the facts relating to the attack of August 29, 1996, the State argued that “the incident in which Mr. Velez was injured was not a deliberate attack, but the result of a chaotic situation that led to acts of violence involving the marchers that caused the State’s security forces to react, where one of the consequences was the injury to Mr. Velez.” In addition, the Court has verified that, similarly, when testifying before this Court by affidavit in 2012, the person who was Commander of the Twelfth Brigade of the National Army in 1996, General Nestor Ramirez Mejia, even stated that Mr. Vélez Restrepo received “a blow […] from a soldier as the result […] of a situation involving the cameraman’s imprudence and a soldier’s lack of self-control.” 144. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that, even though the attack on Mr. Velez took place in a context in which agents of the security forces were trying to control a protest demonstration with thousands of people, where confrontations arose with some of the protestors (supra paras. 78 to 81), Mr. Vélez Restrepo was attacked under the following conditions: he was defenseless and had not acted in any way to justify such an attack; he could be identified as a member of the press by the video camera he was carrying and, moreover, the attack was directed against him with the specific purpose of preventing him from continuing to record what was taking place and to prevent the dissemination of the recording. The Court finds that it is inacceptable to affirm that the attack on a journalist, under these conditions, “was not a deliberate attack” and that it was a “consequence” of the actions taken by the security forces to control the acts of violence that took place at the time. 145. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the content of the information that Mr. Vélez Restrepo was recording was of public interest. Mr. Vélez Restrepo captured images of soldiers involved in actions to control the demonstration that was taking place on August 29, 1996 in Caquetá, attacking defenseless individuals (supra paras. 80 and 81). The dissemination of that information enabled those who saw it to observe and verify whether, during the demonstration, the members of the armed forces were performing their duties correctly, with an appropriate use of force. This Court has stressed that “[d]emocratic control by society, through public opinion, encourages transparency in the State’s actions and promotes the accountability of public officials in relation to their public functions.” 165 146. Lastly, the Commission affirmed that “[a]ttacks such as those suffered by Mr. Vélez result in fear to capture and disseminate certain information and opinions,” so that they limit the freedom of expression “of all citizens, because they have an intimidating effect on the free flow of information.” 147. In this regard, Colombia stated that it is not responsible for the violation of the social dimension of the right to freedom of thought and expression, and emphasized that “[t]here is no evidence in these international proceedings that society or other journalists were intimidated by Richard’s situation.” 165 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 83, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 127. Similarly, Cf. ECHR. Surek and Ozdemir v. Turkey, No. 23927/94, July 8, 1999, para. 60, and Feldek v. Slovakia, No. 29032/95), July 12, 2001, para. 83. 45