‘the initial investigations indicated that the real identity of Mr. Medina Ferreras’ was Wilnet Yan, but that ‘this was subsequently amended as necessary,’ it referred to a change in the line of investigation.” According to the State the Directorate General of Immigration (DGM) “was investigating the presumed deportation of Willia[n] Medina Ferreras, but on finding that there was no record of the deportation of anyone with that name, it understood that two different persons were referred to”; this explains “the said assertion in the State’s answering brief.” The State added that “in view of what took place during the public hearing of the case, the initial line of investigation was revalidated” and “the Central Electoral Board […] resumed the initial DGM investigation and concluded that [the] original line of investigation was correct.” Accordingly, the Central Electoral Board “provisionally suspended the corresponding birth certificate,” and “the Legal Office of [the Board] was instructed to require the annulment of the birth declaration, [and] the identity and voter registration cards were cancelled.” In addition, the State indicated that the assertion of “identity theft” was based on the DGM investigation, and that the case file before the Court included the “notarized statements” in which several individuals “testified” that they knew “Winet Yan.” The State added that “the inquiries” made in 2000 “did not continue for the [following] reasons […]; (a) strict compliance with the provisional measures, and (b) a circumstantial change in the line of investigation.” Together with these explanations, the State forwarded a series of documents in which the actions taken since September 12, 2013, were recorded (infra paras. 207 and 208). 141. In their observations on the State’s brief, the representatives indicated that the “subsequent correction that the State refer[red] to in its answer […] (para. 21.1.5), should be analyzed taking into account [the whole] content of the document to which this assertion relates,” and that “paragraph 21.1.5 [of that document], which indicates that ‘[t]his was subsequently corrected as necessary’ cannot be interpreted in a way that is contrary to the State’s recognition of the juridical personality and nationality of Mr. Medina Ferreras.” They added that “the arguments presented by the State in relation to the ‘subsequent correction’ of the ‘certification’ issued by the DGM lack a factual basis or coherence with the evidence provided. The State is trying to justify its change in the line of the investigation by “what took place during the public hearing,’” but it has been “proved that the date on which the State opened the new investigation was September 26, 2013; in other words, 12 days before […] the said hearing before the Court.” They added that “the State was unable to provide the document recording the ‘correction’ of the ‘certification’ issued by the DGM” and that: The valid documents with legal effects, including all the documents presented to the [Commission] and the [Court], such as the birth certificates, the certifications issued by the National Civil Registry Directorate, and the full records (in extenso) issued by the Internal Director of the Civil Registry, only indicate that the sole correction made by the State was to recognize the juridical personality and nationality of Willian Medina Ferreras. They added that “[t]here is no formal record or declaration of […] fraud, especially one that was valid and gave rise to legal effects, or that had been issued by a competent authority, to justify this action.” Regarding the “circumstantial change in the line of investigation, [they considered “that it was the State itself that created the evidence supporting this ‘change in the line of investigation’ with elements under its control.” official record or statement of this fraud with legally validity and effects […] issued by the competent authority and, if so, to forward the Court a true copy of the document with this record or statement.” In this regard, the State was asked to “describe the ‘investigations’ that were conducted in 2000 and how they made it possible, since they were not concluded, to determine the ‘identity theft.’ Likewise, the State was asked to provide information on whether the determination was supported by or derived from an official record or declaration of this ‘identity theft’ with legal validity and effects, issued by the competent authority. If so, the State was asked to send the Court a true copy of the document supporting this record or declaration.” 42