well as the fact that Air Force documents were incinerated (supra para. 124). In addition, the State did not respond to the question that the Court asked in order to obtain helpful information (supra para. 11 and note 15) regarding whether, during the domestic criminal proceedings, a line of investigation had been followed concerning the probative elements provided by the testimony of individuals who stated that they had witnessed, known of, or verified the destruction or alteration of official documents that could have been relevant for the investigation of what happened to the presumed victim and, if appropriate, the conclusions that were reached. 235. This above is especially serious in the case of a forced disappearance, precisely because it is “characterized by trying to eliminate any element that would allow the abduction, the whereabouts, and the fate of the victims to be proved” (supra para. 134). The information that should be registered in the archives, logbooks, rosters and any other document recording information of the State’s security agencies is valuable and necessary to identify those who were detained on the dates of Narciso González Medina’s disappearance, and the State agents who were on duty those days. The follow-up on this information could be extremely useful to determine Mr. González Medina’s whereabouts and clarify the facts investigated. 236. In this regard, the Court considers that, even though the Investigating Judge asked questions about the loss of duty rosters or their possible incineration, the judicial decisions of August 2001 and December 2002 (supra paras. 119 and 120) do not contain any assessment of the said probative elements, or whether they had been followed up on to determine what really happened, and the connection to Narciso González Medina’s disappearance. In addition, if the deponents had really contradicted each other, as the State indicated before the Court, it also corresponded to the judicial authorities to investigate this and make the inquiries and conduct the expert appraisals necessary to clarify any discrepancies that existed, and there is no record that this was done. 237. Furthermore, there is no record that the judges in charge of the judicial investigation developed a line of inquiry about the reason why two deponents retracted their testimony. 270 The possibility that they had changed their testimony owing to fear or threats was not investigated, and this is particularly serious taking into account that one of them stated that he had taken part in the operation to arrest Mr. González Medina and had taken him to the Intelligence Division or Directorate of the Armed Forces Secretariat of State (J-2) (supra para. 156). In his first statement, this deponent testified that he had not advised his superiors for “fear that [he] would be killed if he testified.” However, when retracting his statement before the Investigating Judge, the latter merely reminded the deponent that, previously, he had stated the contrary. There is no reference to or assessment of this in the decisions of the Investigating Judge and of the Review Chamber (supra paras. 119 and 120), merely a simple summary of the testimony. 270 One of these deponents was a Major of the National Police who, two months after he had stated that he remembered “perfectly” having witnessed the destruction of May 26, 1994, duty rosters by two Majors of the National Police, retracted, indicating that his “eyes had possibly deceived [him].” Testimony of Damián Enrique Arias Matos of June 15, 1998, before the Joint Board (file of attachments to the application, attachment 13, folio 3988), and testimony of August 10, 1998, given by Damián Enrique Arias Matos before the Seventh Investigating Court (merits file, tome V, folio 1860). The other deponent who retracted was a military official, a Sergeant Major, who initially stated before the Joint Board that he taken part in the operation to arrest Narciso González Medina and who, eight months later, before the Investigating Court, retracted this testimony and indicated that the operation had been to locate another person (supra notes 189 and 192). Cf. Testimony of May 15, 1998, given by Juan Dionisio Marte before the Joint Board (supra note 189, folios 1974 to 1981), and testimony of Juan Dionisio Marte of January 12, 1999, before the Seventh Investigating Court, supra note 189, folio 1903. 74