killed if he testified,” and therefore had not advised his superiors; (iii) the new version he gave is in keeping with the conclusion reached previously by the Joint Board, before the witness retracted; 195 (iv) during his interrogation before the Joint Board, he was shown a photograph of Narciso González Medina and indicated three times that the person they were looking for in the said operation was Mr. González Medina; 196 (v) during the interrogation before the Joint Board, he was shown the General in person, and he indicated that “he was not the persons we went to look for”; (vi) the operation to detain the General took place on May 16, 1994 (the day of the elections), while the alleged disappearance of Narciso González Medina was on May 26, 1994; (vii) there is no record in the report of the Joint Board or in the court decisions that either of these investigative bodies verified detention records to corroborate the alleged confusion, and (viii) the State did not respond to the Court’s request for helpful evidence, asking it to submit a “copy of the record of detentions (logbook) of May 16, 1994, where the detention [of the General] was recorded, as well as explanations on how the conclusion was reached that Mr. González Medina and Mr. Mota Henríquez resembled each other” (supra para. 141). 157. Furthermore, the Court notes that the testimony of two witnesses (a former Captain and a “police informer”) who affirmed that they had seen Mr. González Medina personally, one in the J-2 and the other in the Homicide Department of the National Police, were not assessed by either the Joint Board or by the courts in their conclusions or decisions. Regarding the testimony of the former Army Captain, in response to the request for an explanation as helpful evidence (supra para. 11 and note 15), when testifying before this Court, the Investigating Judge in charge of the investigation indicated that the said testimony “was not part of the Judiciary’s case file, but was forwarded as part of the report of the Joint Board […] and, consequently, was considered extrajudicial information, with a referential value for the courts.” However, the Court was not given any reason why the said witness was not summoned a second time to testify before the Investigating Judge. In this regard, the only information provided by the State relates to the measures taken when the investigation was reopened (supra paras. 122 and 123), consisting of a request for collaboration of September 17, 2010, addressed to the Embassy of the United States of America by the Attorney General of the Republic, for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to accompany members of the Dominican Public Prosecution Service to question the said former Captain, because he resides in the United States of America. In its answering brief and during the public hearing, the State indicated that it had already questioned the former Captain; however, this Court has not received any evidence of this, or the respective results, assessments or conclusions relating to it. However, the testimony of the “police informer” was received by the Joint Board and by the Investigating Court in charge of the investigation and is included among the evidence gathered, but no assessment has been made or conclusion reached with regard to it. The Court underlines this absence of assessment in the case of the “police informer” because, according to the Report of the Joint Board, this deponent had been subjected to detention and a search without a court order and the deponent stated that this was a result of his testimony. 197 195 Based principally on the testimony of other individuals who took part in the operation, the Joint Board reached the “intrinsic belief” that the persons who were transferred during the said operation were retired Brigadier Generals Jesús Mota Henríquez and Felipe Emiliano Rojas López, “an event that occurred at approximately 11 p.m. on May 16, 1994.” Report of the Joint Board, supra note 109, folio 3850. 196 In his testimony, Juan Dionisio Marte stated the first time that, “this was four years ago, but I think I recognize that face, I think it is the same”; the second time, “it could be the same person,” and the third time, “that was the person we went to get.” Testimony of Juan Dionisio Marte before the Joint Board on May 15, 1998, supra note 189, folio 1978. 197 According to his testimony, the said “police informer” appeared before the Investigating Judge in charge of the investigation to give testimony and, when he asked that the Attorney General of the Republic be present, he was informed that he should come back another day, because the Attorney General was not available, However, 52