freedom of expression of Narciso González Medina, in relation to the obligation to respect and to ensure rights 84 established in the American Convention (supra paras. 3 and 5). A) Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 83. The Commission argued that “the constituent elements of forced disappearance are present in [this] case.” It indicated that, at the time of the facts, “the repressive mechanisms of the dictatorship […] and of the previous governments of Joaquín Balaguer” persisted, and this facilitated the selective forced disappearance of anyone who opposed them. It underlined the role that Narciso González Medina played in the political context of the time. In particular, the Commission indicated that the detention of Mr. González Medina “constituted the first step in [his] forced disappearance,” so that it was not necessary to analyze whether the specific elements Article 7 of the Convention had been constituted. In addition, it emphasized that the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to provide information on the whereabouts of the alleged victim, was also constituted by mechanisms such as “the destruction and modification of the official records of the entities in which Narciso González was seen for the last time.” It underscored the testimony according to which Narciso González Medina was seen in State entities in a very bad condition and that, in addition, “it can be inferred” that “this was exacerbated by the failure to provide the medical treatment he required to control his convulsions,” as well as the effects on his mental and moral integrity, inherent in forced disappearance, such as “feelings of fear, anguish and helplessness that, in the least critical of these situations, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” In addition, the Commission indicated that the State had not offered any explanation, or “official version” about what happened to the victim, and had not disproved the presumption of death. It also argued that the presumed forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina “was ensured by the impossibility of the victim and of his family seeking judicial protection,” in view of the denial of his detention, and also owing to the absence of a diligent investigation, “the purpose of which was to deprive him of his juridical personality, excluding him from the legal and institutional system.” 84. The representatives argued that, “on May 26, 1994, Narciso González was abducted by State agents, specifically by officials of the J-2 (the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces Secretariat of State) and […] was taken to various State entities,” where he was tortured and then secretly disappeared; in this regard, testimonies exist that were rejected and not considered valid by the State. They emphasized that this case “occurred at a time of great political and social tension,” while the repressive policies implanted in the security apparatus of the State decades earlier remained in effect. They also indicated that “[t]he refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate of [Mr.] González [Medina] transformed his deprivation of liberty into a forced disappearance, especially because, in this case, the family approached different State entities and authorities asking for information and informing them of the disappearance.” Furthermore, they indicated that “the forced disappearance” of Mr. González Medina also violated Article 13 of the American Convention, because it was perpetrated against a journalist who played a decisive role in the Dominican democratic sphere and had denounced the electoral fraud, and also because the denial of information concerning the presumed victim’s detention was also constituted by the actions of State agents who, “by mutual agreement, destroyed evidence and concealed information.” In addition, they argued that Narciso González Medina suffered 84 Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 28