“physical and mental torture during his detention,” owing to the “pattern of police abuse and the practice of torture in places of detention in the Dominican Republic at the time of the facts,” the testimony of those who stated that they had seen the alleged victim “bathed in blood” and in a “very bad condition,” the intervention of the so-called “paleros” [Note: literally men with batons] in his detention, “and the victim’s illness.” They underscored that, to date, no serious investigation has been conducted into the facts. 85. The State argued that it had not “participate[d] in the disappearance of Narciso González Medina, and had not given its acquiescence to possible private individuals who may have taken part in it.” It indicated that Mr. González Medina “was not detained irregularly and forcibly by State agents or with their consent and, in particular, he was never in the State’s custody.” The State added that it had acted “with due diligence to clarify the disappearance [of the alleged victim] and to punish those eventually found responsible for his capture,” so that “there is no causal relationship” between the disappearance of Professor González Medina and the alleged failure of the State to comply with its international obligations to protect him.” It also emphasized that the Court cannot convict the State of an act committed by a private individual. It stressed that the context in which the disappearance of Mr. González Medina occurred “did not respond to a systematic climate of forced disappearance of persons […] and that the representatives had ‘erroneously equated’ the different periods of the government of Balaguer because, when the facts of this case took place, there was more respect for public freedoms and “the facts and/or acts […] described by the representatives no longer occurred.” It argued that it “would have had no reason to carry out such an act,” because the alleged victim “was not a well-known figure […] able to influence public opinion.” In addition, it underscored that it had “been able to disprove the circumstantial evidence presented by the [Commission] and the representatives” by the investigations that had been conducted. In particular, regarding the testimony of the witnesses, it considered that the representatives “have not been able to prove […] the anonymous rumors in the case [and] the inconsistent statements that […] the judge had to reject because they did not constitute serious, grave and consistent indications.” In addition, subsidiarily, it asked the Court not to declare the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, because the Court had only declared this violation in one case. Lastly, the State “declare[d] categorically” that neither the Dominican police nor the military authorities destroyed or altered documents relating to Mr. González Medina. 86. The Court will establish the proven facts, in order to determine whether what happened to Mr. González Medina constitutes a forced disappearance, and to rule on the alleged violations. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 41(3) of its Rules of Procedure, it may consider accepted the facts that have not been explicitly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. In addition, in order to determine whether the alleged disappearance occurred and whether it was continuing to occur on the date that the Dominican Republic accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, when determining the facts, the Court will include some aspects relating to the context and some relevant facts that occurred before that date. The Court will also include the investigations conducted prior to that date as background information. B) Proven Facts B.1) Historical context 87. The State did not dispute the fact that, from 1930 to 1961, the Dominican Republic was governed by a dictatorial regime, presided by Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. During this 29