was subsequently revoked by the Review Chamber. 200 In addition, the testimony of the brother of a deceased Army Captain (according to which, his brother had seen Narciso González Medina en the A-2 in a very bad condition), was rejected by the Investigating Court, because “the said individual had died, which made it impossible to question him and, consequently, to establish the reliability of this statement,” 201 and because “the senior A-2 officers who gave orders, […] testified that […] they were unaware of the facts, and that they were never informed of the presence of Professor Narciso González in the said Department.” 202 Also, the Review Chamber considered that “the said version of the facts could not be proved,” because, inter alia, neither the deceased nor the individual providing the information had confided it to a third person, and because “it had not been possible to establish that Narciso González had really been at the A-2 headquarters,” taking into account that the individuals who it was indicated were involved (senior personnel and the “police informer” of the A-2) denied their participation and the presence of Narciso González in the A-2. 203 160. In this regard, the Court observes that one of the most relevant reasons for rejecting the said statements was that they were denied by the State authorities who could have been involved. Nevertheless, there is no record in the judicial decisions that any additional verification was made in this regard. 161. The Court recalls that, one of the characteristics of forced disappearance is precisely “the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned,” so that it is highly questionable to reject the testimony of witnesses, whether just one or several, based on the denial of the senior officers of the State entity where it is said that the disappeared person was detained. It is neither logical nor reasonable to investigate a forced disappearance and subordinate its clarification to the acceptance or confession of the possible authors or authorities involved, or to the similarity or agreement of their testimony with that of witnesses who state that they were aware of the victim’s presence in State facilities. The Court notes that, in the investigation of an alleged forced disappearance, the State authorities must take into account the elements characteristic of this type of crime (supra para. 128 and infra para. 221). 162. Lastly, the Court takes note of the testimony of a detainee who stated that he had seen Narciso González, who had been “beaten,” in the National Intelligence Directorate 200 According the said “supplier,” she commented on this episode to a National Army Colonel when they were discussing the news published in the press about the case of Mr. González Medina. This Colonel testified confirming that “at the beginning of 1997,” the “supplier” had told him what has been described above, and he had passed this on to the “Head of the Army,” who, in turn, “advised” the then Armed Forces Secretary of State. The Colonel testified that this woman “repeated the same account that she had given before the two Generals, and also gave the same testimony [before the Joint Board].” Summary of the statement made by Paulina Alba before the Investigating Court on February 19, 1999, supra note 190, folio 4497, and summary of the statement made by Reyes Silvero Suárez del Orbe before the Investigating Court on February 26, 1999, cited in the August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court, supra note 105, folio 4499. 201 The Captain died on June 2, 1994, apparently as the result of a traffic accident. Cf. Forensic autopsy Report No. A 870-96 sent to the Attorney General of the Republic on June 23, 1998 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 8, folios 3766 to 3769); summaries of the testimony given by Carlos Batista Rivas on November 22, 1996, and November 11, 1998, before the Seventh Investigating Court, supra note 190, folios 4330, 4331, 4441 and 4443; statement made by Carlos Batista Rivas before the Joint Board on June 27, 1998, supra note 190, folios 4067 and 4068, and summary of the statement made by Carlos Batista Rivas before the Review Chamber on September 20, 2002, supra note 190, folio 4583. 202 August 24, 2001, ruling of the Seventh Investigating Court, supra note 105, folios 4542 and 4543. 203 Cf. Decision of December 18, 2002, of the Santo Domingo Review Chamber, supra note 138, folios 4601 and 4602. 54