204. Regarding Colombia’s allegation that Mr. Vélez Restrepo decided to leave Colombia “of his own volition,” the Court underlines that, when Mr. Vélez Restrepo made this decision, over the previous year he had faced a situation that included: the attack against him by soldiers, two periods in which he had received threats and harassment against him and his family, and a serious death threat followed by an attempted deprivation of liberty. This makes it reasonable to assume that the measures of protection offered by the State were not opportune, and also that the risk continued because the events had not been investigated and punished. Added to this, the Court notes that, even though the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo perpetrated by soldiers was in Caquetá, the threats occurred in Bogota, which also explains Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s founded fear that he would not be protected anywhere in the country. 205. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, by an investigation into the threats and harassment and by the adoption of opportune measures of protection, which constitutes a violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. C.3) Violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression of Mr. Vélez Restrepo Observations of the Commission and arguments of the parties 206. The Commission considered that the threats, harassment and attempted kidnapping suffered by Mr. Vélez constituted an additional violation of Article 13 of the Convention since “they were carried out with the clear intention of silencing [him] and making him withdraw his complaints, producing self-censorship and fear,” for both Mr. Vélez and for “the community of journalists who covered the activities of the military forces,” and this had an intimidating effect on the free flow of information, which affects the general population. It also indicated that when the attack, threats and forced exile of a person exercising journalistic functions remains in impunity, the social dimension of the right to freedom of expression is violated. The Commission considered that “the lack of protection and investigation of the threats and harassment suffered by Mr. Vélez, which led to his definitive separation from journalism owing to his exile, constituted an additional violation of his freedom of thought and expression.” 207. The representative stated that he “agreed] fully with the Inter-American Commission” as regards the alleged violations of Article 13 of the Convention. In addition, he argued that “what occurred from August 29, 1996, until September 12, 1998, constituted a campaign orchestrated by State agents […] with a single objective: to silence Richard Vélez for having made public the content of the videotape that he recorded in Caquetá and for having blamed members of the military forces [for] the attacks, threats, and harassment against himself and his family.” 208. The State considered that “the participation of [its] agents [in the threats and harassment] has not been proved”; hence it maintained that it was not necessary to determine whether they had resulted in a violation to the right to freedom of expression. It added that “the representatives were never able to prove that the reason for the supposed intimidation was to limit and restrict [the] journalistic activities [of Mr. Vélez].” The State reiterated that the international responsibility it had acknowledged is “a matter of justice” for the “presumed threats, presumed harassment, and presumed attempted kidnapping.” It affirmed that there are no elements in this case to find that an alleged violation of the collective right of other journalists has been proved.” In addition, it argued that certain facts 61