(DNI) in “May 1994,” and also when they took him away in a car with his eyes covered. 204 His testimony was supported by an acquaintance, who confirmed that the detainee had told him that he had seen Narciso González in the DNI. 205 However, the Court observes that this testimony was rejected by the Joint Board, based on the testimony of the detainee’s mother, according to which, the dates and circumstances of his detention did not coincide with the dates of Mr. González Medina’s disappearance. 206 Nevertheless, there is no record in the Joint Board’s report that it had corroborated the detainee’s statement with detention records or any other element, other than the testimony of his mother. The Joint Board assumed that the mother’s testimony was true and that the testimony of her son was false, without offering any explanation. 163. Similarly, the Court notes that, in its final written arguments, the State indicated, in general, that the Commission and the representatives founded the alleged disappearance, inter alia, on “inconsistent statements by individuals which, when compared with the reality, had to be rejected by the judge.” However, the Court was not provided with specific information on the supposed inconsistencies of all the statements described above. 164. Therefore, the Court considers it admissible to consider the testimony of the witnesses who stated that they had seen or that they were aware of the presence of Mr. González Medina in State facilities in the days following his disappearance, as valid and truthful indications of the presumed disappearance of Mr. González Medina. When assessing these indications, the Court will not take into account the statements of the Sergeant Major who retracted his testimony and of the detainee whose mother provided different dates of his detention, because, owing to the State’s omissions when investigating these facts, the Court has insufficient information to assess the said statements one way or another, without prejudice to its previous considerations on the said omissions of the State. The foregoing does not eliminate the Dominican Republic’s obligation to rectify the said omissions during the investigations, and their legal consequences will be determined in the chapter corresponding to the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection infra. Consequently, the Court finds that, at the domestic level, four statements were made according to which Narciso González Medina was in the J-2, in the National Police, and in the A-2 on the day of his disappearance and the following days, in the custody of State authorities, apparently having been beaten and in a bad physical condition in the last two entities, and their authenticity and veracity have not been contested on satisfactory grounds. D.5) Failure to determine the whereabouts of Mr. González Medina and to clarify the facts 165. In this case, it has been proved that the State has been unable to clarify and offer a definitive official version of what happened to Mr. González Medina 17 years and 9 months ago. In the proceedings before this Court, the Dominican Republic argued that, “in order to find out precisely what happened to Narcisazo, all the relevant hypotheses proposed must 204 This deponent indicated that he had spoken to him, but only realized that the person detained was Narciso González Medina when he had been released, seeing him in the newspapers. Cf. Statement made by Fernando Isidro Olivo Sánchez before the Joint Board, supra note 190, folio 4091. 205 Cf. Undated statement made by Carlos Rodolfo Cuevas before the Joint Board (file of attachments to the application, attachment 13, folio 4094). 206 Based on the testimony of the mother of the man who had been detained, the Joint Board “verified,” that the dates and circumstances of his detention did not concur with what he had stated, because, according to his mother, he was detained from May “7 to 11,” 1994. Cf. Report of the Joint Board, point b-11), supra note 109, folio 3860. 55