considers that, given the impunity of these facts, both Mr. Vélez Restrepo and other journalists could reasonably fear that this type of human rights violation might be repeated, and this could lead to self-censorship of their work;204 for example, as regards the type of news covered, the way the information is obtained, and the decision to disseminate it. 213. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the arguments submitted by the representative205 concerning the fact that Mr. Vélez Restrepo had to abstain from journalism due to his asylum in the United States of America, were taken into account by Court when ruling on the alleged additional violation of the right to freedom of expression in this section. 214. Lastly, the Court notes that it did not consider proved the facts argued by the Commission and explained by the representative regarding the supposed “strong pressure” exerted by the medium for which Mr. Vélez worked “to censor his work and to withdraw his legal complaints against the Army” (supra para. 55(a)). From the statement made by Mr. Vélez Restrepo before this Court, it even appears that he was removed from covering news on law and order as a measure taken by the news program to help him recover from the impact that the attack by the soldiers on August 9, 1996, had had on him. Accordingly, the Court finds that these alleged facts are not matters that should be taken into account when ruling on the alleged violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. 215. Based on all the above, the Court considers that the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate the acts of violence of August 29, 1996, and the subsequent threats and harassment, and with the obligation to adopt measures of protection in view of the threats and harassment entailed failure to comply with the obligations to respect and guarantee the right to freedom of thought and expression of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, and consequently, the State is responsible for violating Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty. X RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY AND RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS A) Observations of the Commission and arguments of the parties 216. The Commission indicated that, since the State had incurred direct responsibility for the threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez and his family and had failed to comply with its obligations of protection and investigation in this regard, “both the harassment itself and also its foreseeable consequences, including the exile, can be attributed to the State”; hence, the State had violated Article 22(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children, Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. The Commission argued that Colombia had violated Article 17(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, his wife, and Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, and Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the last two, based on the fact that “the acts and omissions of the Colombian State had profound and undeniable consequences on 204 Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Impunity, self-censorship and armed internal conflict: an analysis of the state of freedom of expression in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc. 51 of August 31, 2005, para. 99. 205 The presumed victims and their representatives may invoke violations of rights other than those established in the Merits Report, based on the same facts (supra para. 47). 63