State entities, and (5) the State’s failure to clarify the facts. For the purpose and effects of this Court’s judgment, the findings that emerge from the body of evidence are sufficient to reach the conclusion that Narciso González Medina was forcibly disappeared by the Dominican Republic. D.6) Alleged destruction and alteration of documents as part of the forced disappearance 171. Regarding the arguments of the representatives and the Commission concerning the alleged destruction and/or alteration of documents (supra paras. 44, 72 and 83), the Court does not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the said alteration or “disappearance” of official documents of the Intelligence Division or Directorate of the Armed Forces Secretariat of State (J-2) and the Intelligence Department of the Dominican Air Force (A-2) really occurred (infra para. 234). Nevertheless, the Court considered as proven that “due to accumulation and lack of space,” documents of the Dominican Air Force dated prior to 2000, including duty rosters corresponding to the dates of Mr. González Medina’s disappearance, had been incinerated (supra para. 124). 172. Regarding the argument that the supposed destruction and alteration of official documents forms part of the enforced disappearance (supra paras. 83 and 84), the Court takes into account that expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán explained that the acts that constitute enforced disappearances (the deprivation of liberty and the denial or concealment of the whereabouts or fate of the victim) “can be committed by means of other acts that can themselves be considered separately [as] crimes.” The ways that information about the victims is hidden can be complex, and one of those ways is precisely “the destruction of files, the falsification of detention records, the creation of new records, or disinformation, etc.” 214 173. The Court considers that the destruction and/or alteration of official documents in order to deny the detention or to conceal the whereabouts of the victim of forced disappearance can constitute acts relating to the third constituent element of the said violation, namely, the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned (supra para. 128). Nevertheless, in the instant case, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to reach the conviction that the incineration of documents sought to prevent the clarification of the disappearance of Narciso González Medina, or that it was done in order to deny or conceal information on his disappearance. Consequently, the Court does not find it proved that the said incineration formed part of the forced disappearance in this case, and does not find it necessary to rule on the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention based on these alleged facts. E) Alleged violations of Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention owing to the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina 174. Having determined the existence of the forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina and that it continued to exist at the date the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will now examine the violations of the American Convention that have been alleged in this regard. 175. This Court recalls that, when analyzing an alleged forced disappearance, it must be taken into account that the individual’s deprivation of liberty should be understood as 214 Testimony given by Federico Andreu Guzmán before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held in this case on June 28, 2011. 58