[…] attacked in the recent public order incidents in the department of Caquetá,” and forwarding him a copy of the above-mentioned letter of the Editor-in-Chief of Noticiero Colombia 12:30 (supra para. 198) and of the measures taken by the Head of the Human Rights Unit, “for the effects that your Department may consider pertinent.” In addition, it is also recorded that, on September 17, 1996, two officials of the Attorney General’s Office, responsible for the disciplinary investigation of the threats and harassment, addressed a note to the Coordinator of the said Human Rights Unit informing him of the results of the interviews with Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his wife, and recommending him to “forward this to the Prosecutor General's Office, or else the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), so that these entities may provide them with adequate protection” (supra para. 109). 200. Despite the foregoing, the State has not affirmed before the Court that, prior to October 6, 1997, it had evaluated the specific situation of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family and the level of risk, and determined the corresponding measures of protection. To the contrary, Colombia has maintained the position that, prior to October 6, 1997, it had no obligation to adopt measures of protection because Mr. Vélez Restrepo had “never requested protection or a safety assessment from the State” prior to that date. 201. Regarding Colombia’s position, the Court considers it necessary to establish that it corresponds to the State authorities to get to know the situation of special risk in order to determine or assess whether the person who is the target of threats and harassment requires measures of protection or to refer the case to the competent authority to do this, and also to offer the person at risk timely information on the measures available. The assessment of whether a person requires measures of protection and which measures are appropriate is an obligation of the State and cannot be restricted to the victim himself requesting this from “the competent authorities,” or knowing exactly which authority is best suited to deal with his situation, because it corresponds to the State to establish the corresponding measures of coordination between its agencies and officials. The Court underscores that, at the time of the events of this case, the Protection Program for Journalists and Social Communicators created in 2000 did not exist, and that the threats and harassment were reported to the Special Investigations Unit of the Attorney General’s Office that was conducting an inquiry into the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, and to a prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation into the threats. 202. Even though there was a period in 1997 when the threats decreased and no longer occurred (supra para. 87), the Court notes that this coincided with Mr. Vélez and his wife taking measure to protect themselves such as moving house and that, according to the body of evidence provided, at that time, Mr. Vélez Restrepo did not take part in measures to obtain the investigation of the attack of August 29, 1996. 203. In the instant case, the State had the obligation to act with diligence in view of the special risk faced by Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, taking into account the contextual elements described, as well as the fact that, in this specific case, there were realistic indications to suppose that the reason for the threats and harassment against him were related to the measures he took to obtain the investigation of the attack he suffered by soldiers to prevent him from exercising his freedom of expression. The State did not comply with its obligation to prevent the violation of the rights of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, by the adoption of timely and necessary measures of protection, until shortly after Mr. Vélez Restrepo had suffered an attempted deprivation of liberty, at which time the State offered him various measures of protection that included the possibility of relocating to another part of the country to lessen the reported risk (supra para. 95). 60