148. The Court finds it reasonable to conclude that the attack perpetrated against Mr. Vélez Restrepo by soldiers while he was covering a public demonstration, and its widespread dissemination in the Colombian media, had a negative impact on other journalists who had to cover events of this type, who could fear suffering similar acts of violence. In addition, the Court has verified that this attack prevented Mr. Vélez Restrepo from continuing to record the events of August 29, 1996, when the armed forces were controlling a demonstration, and this had the correlative effect of preventing this information from reaching possible recipients.166 149. Based on the acknowledgment of international responsibility and on the above findings, the Court concludes that, by the acts of violence of August 29, 1996, Colombia violated the obligation to respect the right to freedom of thought and expression of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s, recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty C) Regarding events after the attack of August 29, 1996 150. In this section, the Court must rule on the State’s alleged responsibility in relation to the threats and harassment that took place after August 29, 1996 (supra paras. 85 to 93), and in relation to the attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty that occurred on October 6, 1997 (supra para. 94), and the subsequent departure from the country of Mr. Vélez Restrepo (supra para. 96) and his wife and children (supra para. 97). Colombia contested both that these events took place and that they had a causal nexus with the attack perpetrated by the soldiers against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996. 151. The Court will decide the aspects in dispute as follows: (1) the alleged violation of the obligation to respect the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife and children owing to the threats, harassment and attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty; (2) the alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife, and children owing to the alleged absence of an investigation and the adoption of measures of protection prior to the attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty that occurred on October 6, 1997, and (3) the additional alleged violation of freedom of thought and expression owing to the events after August 29, 1996. C.1) Obligation to respect the right to personal integrity in relation to the threats, harassment and attempted arbitrary deprivation of liberty Observations of the Commission and arguments of the parties 152. The Commission referred in the Merits Report to the evidence that allowed it to establish “that, following the events of August 29, 1996, Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family experienced a series of threats and harassment that culminated with the attempted kidnapping on October 6, 1997.” It also affirmed that “there is sufficient evidence to conclude that […] they originated from State agents,” who were being investigated for the attack of August 29, 1996, as well as the fact that the State has not offered any other hypothesis that might explain the threats and harassment. According to the Commission, “the repeated threats in the present case violated the right of the members of the Velez Roman family to their mental and moral integrity, also taking into account that the threats were aimed at preventing Mr. Velez from seeking justice.” The Commission concluded that, 166 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 146, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 73. 46