González Medina exercised significant influence and where this publication was disseminated most widely, were in “the vanguard of the opposition.”183 149. Moreover, regarding the speech given at the UASD, expert witness Ramos Vargas explained that the UASD has been “the birthplace of several social protest movements,” which “adds a further element to the threat that [Narciso González Medina’s speech] signified for the Government,” taking into account that “if anything influential occurs in the UASD, […] the event has repercussions throughout the Nation.” According to two expert opinions provided to the Court, the speech given by Narciso González Medina in the UASD was “fairly inflammatory” in the context of the political crisis of the time and his call for civil disobedience “was not an absurd idea,” so that this speech represented “a very serious problem for the Balaguer government” and “a direct threat to those in power.” 184 Moreover, several deponents underlined as a relevant factor that, in his speech, Mr. González Medina had directly accused specific State officials, and one of them affirmed that “in Dominican Republic, that is the shortest path to them vowing to kill you.” 185 150. The Court considers that the evidence provided in the proceedings proves that Mr. González Medina was a highly critical journalist with influence on Dominican society and that his speeches and writing had public impact. The evidence provided by the State (supra para. 147) is insufficient to disprove the above-mentioned opinions of the witnesses and expert witnesses. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s arguments on the supposed limited influence of the presumed victim are unfounded. D.3) Surveillance of Mr. González Medina 151. Before the alleged disappearance of Narciso González Medina, his oldest son, Ernesto González Ramírez, who was 24 years of age at the time, observed that a car with tinted windows was following his father, and the latter told him that he was being “followed [because] they want[ed] to harm [him]” (supra para. 96). Following Mr. González Medina’s disappearance, the National Police, the Joint Board and the Investigating Court were informed of these incidents of harassment and possible surveillance, as can be seen from the summary of the statement made by Ernesto González Ramírez before the Police Board, the statement of Luz Altagracia Ramírez before the Joint Board, and the complaint briefs and the reiteration of the complaint before the Investigating Court. 152. Nevertheless, there is no record in either the summary of the proceedings of the Police Board, or in the report of the Joint Board, or in the decisions of the judicial organs that any investigations were undertaken to follow up on this or that any conclusions were reached in this regard. According to the testimony rendered before this Court by Manuel de Jesús de la Rosa, the Police showed some photographs to Ernesto González Ramírez in which he identified the car that he had seen; however, “when the Police handed over the file after Balaguer left the Presidency, those photographs were missing.” 186 183 Testimony provided by expert witness Robert Salvador Ramos Vargas on June 16, 2011, supra note 90, folios 1181 to 1183. Also, cf. Testimony given by witness Manuel Jesús de la Rosa Hidalgo on June 16, 2011, supra note 100, folio 1136. 184 Testimony provided by expert witness Robert Salvador Ramos Vargas on June 16, 2011, supra note 90, folio 1183. Similarly, Cf. Testimony provided by expert witness Jose Antinoe Fiallo Billini on June 16, 2011, supra note 85, folio 1174. 185 Affidavit of witness Juan Bolívar Díaz of June 16, 2011 (merits file, tome IV, folio 1126) 186 Testimony given by witness Manuel Jesús de la Rosa Hidalgo on June 16, 2011, supra note 100, folio 1140. 49