General who had been the Armed Forces Secretary of State], as guilty of the violation of article 114 of the Dominican Criminal Code; […] Second: [… to] refer him to the criminal courts […] so that he may be tried in accordance with the law.” 137 120. On August 27, 2001, both Narciso González Medina’s family and the accused contested decisions Nos. 195/2001 and 110/2001 by filing appeals. Both appeals were decided on December 18, 2002, by the Santo Domingo Review Chamber (hereinafter also the “Review Chamber”), declaring that, since there was insufficient evidence, “the judicial prosecution of [the Major General who had been the Armed Forces Secretary of State] was unfounded” and confirming the “decision of inadmissibility […] in favor of [… the General who had been in charge of the A-2] and [the Lieutenant Colonel who had been Director of Plans and Operations of the A-2).” 138 121. On May 26, 2004, the plaintiffs reiterated their civil complaint before the National District Public Prosecutor. 139 On August 22, 2006, the National District Seventh Investigating Court issued a certification on the status of the proceedings, indicating that, following the ruling of December 18, 2002, delivered by the Santo Domingo Review Chamber, the proceedings had been archived. 140 122. On May 2, 2007, the State informed the Inter-American Commission of its decision to “reopen the investigation by the Public Prosecution Service in the case of the disappearance of Mr. González, owing to the new Code of Criminal Procedure.” 141 However, as this Court has already indicated (supra para. 76), the Dominican Republic has not presented specific detailed information on the “reopening” of the criminal investigation in 2007, or a copy of the corresponding case file, which had been requested, but rather forwarded a five-page report prepared by the National District Public Prosecutor dated September 26, 2011. 123. Based on the statements made by two people who worked on this case as prosecutors in 2007, the National District Public Prosecutor at the time appointed a “committee of prosecutors who were in charge of the investigation relating to the disappearance of Professor Narciso González.” 142 The committee of prosecutors proposed investigating four hypotheses. 143 To investigate these hypotheses, the prosecutors took a 137 August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court, supra note 105, folio 4565, and Penal Code of the Dominican Republic (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 26, folio 5068). 138 Decision of December 18, 2002 of the Santo Domingo Review Chamber (file of attachments to the application, attachment 15, folios 4568, 4605 and 4606). See also: certifications issued by the Secretary of the Seventh Investigating Court on the remedies of appeal filed on August 27, 2001, against decisions Nos. 195/2001 and 110-2001 (merits file, tome V, folios 1983 a 1986), and appeal brief of October 24, 2001, filed by Constantino Matos Villanueva before the Review Chamber (merits file, tome V, folios 1987 to 2004). 139 Cf. Brief reiterating the civil complaint of May 26, 2004, supra note 136, folios 3791 to 3816. 140 The parties and the Inter-American Commission all affirmed this fact. However, no evidence was provided to the Court of this certification by the Seventh Investigating Court. Cf. Application brief (merits file, tome I, folio 152, para. 96); pleadings and motions brief (merits file, tome II, folio 357), and answering brief (merits file, tome II, folio 705, para. 114). 141 Note MP-RD-OEA 313-07 of May 2, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission and signed by the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic to the OAS (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folio 1013). 142 Affidavit made by Francisco José Polanco Ureña on June 22, 2011 (merits file, tome III, folio 1090). Also, cf. affidavit made by Dante Castillo Medina on June 22, 2011 (merits file, tome III, folio 1088). 143 Consisting in: “1. Narciso González was abducted by unknown individuals on May 26, 1994, and subsequently murdered; 2. Narciso was arrested by the National Police or a State security agency owing to his opposition to the Balaguer regime and, owing to his health problems he suffered a crisis and died; 3. Where could the corpse of Narciso González be?; 4. Narciso González committed suicide in a place strategically chosen so that 40