contrary to paragraphs 1 and 2 of [Article 5 of the Convention],” so that “it is evident that, in a forced disappearance, every dimension of the personal integrity of the victim is violated.” 181. The Court has also recognized that submitting those detained to official law enforcement units, State agents, or individuals acting with their acquiescence or tolerance, who commit acts of torture and murder with impunity represents, in itself, a breach of the obligation to prevent violations to personal integrity and to life, even if it is not possible to prove such violations in the specific case. 221 182. In this case, the Court finds that it has been proved that a practice existed of illegal detention and cruel treatment or torture by security forces (supra paras. 142 to 144) in the Dominican Republic at the time of the facts. In addition, the body of evidence reveals that: (i) one of the witnesses who saw Narciso González Medina in the National Police declared that he was “bathed in blood” “on his face and body,” and that he had been handed over to agents of the National Police who were “known as ‘paleros’, in other words they beat people” (supra paras. 155 and 157), and (ii) that Mr. González Medina suffered from “refractory epilepsy,” which was very difficult to control, that caused him to have convulsions every so often, and for which he had to take medication every day (supra para. 92). According to his doctor, Mr. González Medina was “a permanent candidate for an epileptic fit, a condition brought on by not taking his medication, or by fever, trauma, or great emotional tension, which could lead to his death owing to non-stop convulsive crises, which facilitated cerebral hypoxia, constant crises, and death within hours.” 222 The same doctor testified before the Review Chamber during the domestic judicial proceedings, that “the individual who has crises tends to react when his is mistreated, […] and only urgent attention for 48 hours can help him survive functionally; but many people die, even if they receive attention in time; imagine being in prison; the prisoner would hurt himself owing to an epileptic fit, because of his illness.” 223 183. The Court considers it reasonable to presume, based on the body of evidence, that Mr. González Medina was subjected to physical and mental ill-treatment while he was in the State’s custody, which was exacerbated by the fact that he suffered from epilepsy, since he was probably prevented from accessing the medication he required. In addition, the Court considers that, very possibly Mr. González Medina’s health deteriorated rapidly and fatally owing to the lack of medical attention, as well as because of the anxiety resulting from a situation such as that of forced disappearance, as explained by his neurologist (supra para. 182). In this regard, the Court notes that the refusal of the authorities to acknowledge the said deprivation of liberty, and to provide information on the whereabouts or fate of the victim, despite the steps taken by his family, placed him in a situation of extreme vulnerability that exacerbated the suffering he endured and prevented Mr. González Medina from receiving the support of his family and his neurologist when he was very probably suffering a serious deterioration of his health. Several deponents before this Court indicated that, when they began the search for Mr. González Medina, his family and friends feared that his absence was related to a crisis related to his illness (supra para. 101). His wife, Luz Altagracia Ramírez, declared before this Court that, when she went to the State agencies 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 175, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 85. 222 Report of Dr. Santiago Valenzuela Sosa, supra note 97, folio 3759. 223 Testimony given by Doctor Valenzuela, supra note 97, folio 1960. 60