attempted deprivation of liberty and the measures taken by Mr. Vélez Restrepo to ensure that the soldiers responsible for the attack he suffered on August 29, 1996, were investigated and punished. 165. The first piece of evidence that the Court takes into account is the impunity that prevails in this case, which is particularly relevant because it implied the failure to investigate the possible connection between the threats and the attempted deprivation of liberty, and the above-mentioned attack by soldiers on August 29, 1996, and the measures taken by Mr. Vélez Restrepo to obtain the punishment of those responsible for that attack. The State acknowledged that no serious investigations were conducted that would have allowed the determination and criminal punishment “of the perpetrators of the August 29, 1996, attack suffered by Mr. […] Vélez Restrepo” or of the “presumed authors of the threats,” and it also acknowledged that the reasonable time for investigating the presumed attempted kidnapping of Mr. Vélez Restrepo was violated. 166. The Court has also found that, in the statement made by Mr. Vélez Restrepo in August 1997 before the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of that investigation, he indicated that he believed that the threats “[were] related to the events that took place in Caquetá on August 29, [1996]” (supra para. 117), for which a complaint had been filed. Mr. Vélez Restrepo explained the consequences that the threats had had on his life and that of his family. When asked if “the threats had persisted,” Mr. Vélez Restrepo explained that, in the last six months, he had not received threats and referred to those that he had received previously. 167. The Court finds that the State’s affirmation that there is no evidence of the said connection is unsubstantiated, considering that it is the State that has the obligation to investigate the possible connection, and it did not do so. The Court underscores the seriousness of this omission, as the threats began less than a month after the attack on Mr. Vélez Restrepo, acknowledged by the State, to prevent him from recording and disseminating the actions of soldiers who were attacking defenseless individuals. The State itself stressed that the recording of the said attacks that was disseminated by the media, “mobilized all the media to speak out,” and even resulted in senior State officials publicly rejecting such actions and asserting that they should be punished. It was logical and consistent to assume that the threats, harassment and attempted deprivation of liberty could originate from the people who were interested in not being punished for these acts of violence. 168. A second piece of evidence is constituted by the indications arising from the temporal correlation between the frequency and intensification of the threats and the measures taken by Mr. Velez to obtain the investigation and punishment of the soldiers who attacked him on August 29, 1996. In around mid-September 1996, Mr. Vélez Restrepo testified in the criminal investigation conducted in the military jurisdiction for the attack of August 29, 1996 (supra para. 106) and, that same month, he began to receive death threats and harassment; also men came to his home claiming to be officials of the Attorney General’s Office, without showing any identification, and asked about his schedules and activities (supra paras. 85 and 86). This situation led Mr. Vélez and his wife to decide to move house, following which they stopped receiving threats at home, although the calls to Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s place of work continued. Between March and August 1997, he received no threats. Mr. Vélez indicated this when he testified that August before the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the criminal investigation into the threats. In that statement, Mr. Vélez explained that he considered that the previous threats were related to the fact that he had denounced the attack of August 29, 1996. After making this statement, in September, Mr. Vélez and his family again received death threats and another visit to his home by men 51