277. The Court appreciates the measures taken by Colombia in this area, through directives that seek to raise awareness within the Armed Forces about the work of journalists and social communicators and the danger they face, especially during armed conflicts, and also about the necessary respect they must exercise so that the latter can exercise their profession without obstacles.258 The existence and validity of these measures was not contested by the Commission and it did not provide information indicating any possible shortcomings. Nevertheless, this Court finds it important that the State continue to enhance its institutional capacities by training the members of the Armed Forces in order to avoid the repetition of acts such as those that occurred in this case. To this end, the State must incorporate into its human rights education programs for the Armed Forces, a specific module on the protection of the right to freedom of thought and expression and on the work of journalists and social communicators. B.5) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations and to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible 278. In its brief submitting the case, the Commission asked that the State be ordered “to conduct, within a reasonable time and under the ordinary jurisdiction, a diligent investigation of all the acts of violence and harassment against [Mr.] Vélez Restrepo and his family, in order to identify, prosecute and punish those eventually found responsible for the said acts,” and “to conduct an investigation in order to identify those eventually found responsible for the lack of measures of protection and the omissions in the protection of Mr. Vélez and his family, and to apply the corresponding administrative, disciplinary, or other sanctions.” Subsequently, in its final observations, the Commission indicated that the State only advised it that the criminal action was time-barred “at the stage of compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report”; consequently, in the said Report, “it did not […] adopt a position regarding the applicability […] of the Court’s case law regarding the statute of limitations.” In this regard, it indicated that “even when the crime cannot prescribe under international law, there are certain rules that must be applied when determining the time that has elapsed for the effects of the statute of limitations,” and it referred to exceptions to invoking and applying the statute of limitations. Hence, it considered prudent that the Court assess whether any of these exceptions are applicable to this case. 279. In the pleadings and arguments brief, the representative asked the Court to order the State “to conduct, within a reasonable time and under the ordinary jurisdiction, a diligent investigation into all the acts of violence and harassment perpetrated against Mr. Vélez, in order to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for the said acts,” and “an investigation in order to identify those possibly responsible for the defects in the investigation and the omissions in the protection of Mr. Vélez and his family, and to apply the corresponding administrative, disciplinary, or any other sanctions.” Following his pleadings and motions brief, the representative argued that happened to Mr. Vélez “is a case of grave human rights violations.” In that regard, he considered that what had happened to Mr. Vélez on August 29, 1996, must be understood as an act of “torture.” Furthermore, he considered that the threats and harassment suffered by the Vélez Román family “culminated in his forced exile in the United States” and “should not be seen as violations that have no connection to the torture suffered by [Mr.] Vélez,” because they also caused them “severe psychological harm.” 258 Cf. Leaflet “Respeto, atención, reconocimiento, protección, prevención, promoción, aplicación and difusión de los derechos humanos y DIH de los grupos especiales.” Permanent Directive No. 19/2010 of the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the National Army (annexes to the answering brief, annex 2, merits file, tome I, folios 455 to 463). 79