223. In this regard, in his testimony, expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán stated that the different acts involved in forced disappearance “must be approached not as isolated and independent unlawful acts, but as constituent elements of a greater crime, [… because d]ealing with this series of lesser offenses in isolation and independently results in the denial of their ratio essendi, namely, the perpetration of the crime of forced disappearance.” 261 E.1) Investigation by the Investigating Court and the Santo Domingo Review Chamber 224. The criminal investigation conducted by the Seventh Investigating Court of the National District Circuit began in June 1995 and concluded with the second instance decision issued by the Santo Domingo Review Chamber in December 2002, revoking the ruling issued by the Investigating Judge declaring the absence of grounds to prosecute one of the accused and confirming that ruling as regards the absence of grounds to prosecute the other two accused (supra paras. 116 and 120). The Court has competence to rule on this investigation as of March 25, 1999; in other words, with regard to the last three years and nine months of the investigation. 225. During this investigation under the criminal jurisdiction only three people, who had occupied senior positions in the State’s security forces at the time of Mr. González Medina’s disappearance, were considered suspects (supra paras. 117 and 119). However, none of them was charged when the investigation was ended by the Review Chamber. The Investigating Judge in charge of the investigation had decided to press charges against the person who had been the Armed Forces Secretary of State for the offense of illegal detention, and to forward the investigation “to the criminal court” so that he could be tried. However, this decision was revoked by the Santo Domingo Review Chamber because it found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the said former Armed Forces Secretary of State (supra para. 120). Regarding the criminal norms applied during the investigation and in the said judicial decisions, the Court has verified that these were the offenses of abduction, deprivation of liberty, homicide and criminal association, defined in a law and in the Criminal Code and that forced disappearance is not defined as a crime in the Dominican Republic. 226. From an analysis of the decisions issued by both judicial organs, it can be verified that they did not understand the complexity of conducts that, accumulatively, allow the act of forced disappearance to be constituted. These omissions and lack of understanding resulted in the failure to follow logical lines of inquiry appropriate for a case of forced disappearance, which resulted in the ineffectiveness of the investigation and the consequent failure to identify and punish those who, in different ways, could have taken part in this crime. Regarding the lack of due diligence in the investigation, the Court will now analyze these two aspects and then rule on the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention because, in this case, it is related to this analysis of lack of due diligence. E.1.a) Lack of due diligence in the integral investigation of the elements that constitute forced disappearance 227. In this regard, it is worth noting the assertion of the Investigating Judge in his ruling of August 24, 2001, when he stated that “in order to charge any individual, or those 261 Written summary of the expert opinion provided by Federico Andreu Guzmán during the public hearing before the Court (merits file, tome IV, folio 1748, paras. 27 and 28). 71