dimensions with due diligence, rather than analyzing its constituent elements piecemeal (supra paras. 129 and 221). In the investigation of a forced disappearance, the States Parties to the Convention must take into account the characterization of this violation that the Court has affirmed in its consistent case law since 1988 (supra para. 50). 245. In the instant case, the Court has verified that the State did not conduct an effective and diligent investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina. By investigating based on the crimes defined in its domestic law (abduction, deprivation of liberty, homicide, and criminal association), the judicial authorities did not take into account the elements that constitute forced disappearance of persons or their extreme gravity, which warrants appropriate punishment (supra paras. 128 to 130). The investigation before the Investigating Court and the Review Chamber committed the grave omission of failing to adopt the necessary measures to reveal the different elements that make up this grave human rights violation. An analysis of the decisions issued by both judicial organs confirms that they did not understand the complexity of conducts that accumulatively constitute forced disappearance (supra paras. 226 to 241). 246. The Court concludes that the failure to make an adequate use of norms or practices that guarantee an effective investigation taking into account the complexity and extreme gravity of forced disappearance entailed non-compliance with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention to adopt the domestic provisions required to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the Convention by the investigation of the forced disappearance of Narciso González Medina and the identification, prosecution and, as appropriate, punishment of those responsible. E.2) Reopening of the investigation by the Public Prosecution Service 247. First, the information in the body of evidence reveals that, since the reopening of the investigation was ordered more than four years and nine months ago (supra para. 122), no specific results have been achieved as regards determining what happened, none of the possible authors has been identified, and the whereabouts of Mr. González Medina have still not been discovered. 248. In addition, the Court notes that the State did not present a complete version of the information requested by the Court concerning the reopening of the criminal investigation or a copy of the corresponding case file (supra paras. 76 and 77). To the contrary, the limited documentation that the Dominican Republic has provided with regard to the said investigation that is underway has consisted of selected pages from the file, mainly related to the hypothesis that Mr. González Medina committed suicide (supra para. 77). The Court has established that the State provided those documents alone, without forwarding the other probative elements obtained during the investigation or a complete copy of the file (supra para. 77). The Court finds it inadequate that the State’s representatives in these proceedings have chosen to forward only those items of evidence designed to support the said hypothesis when two prosecutors who took part in the investigation have explained to this Court that other possible hypothesis were also being investigated (supra paras. 123 and 168). 249. Consequently, the State has not provided this Court with the probative elements to prove that it has acted with due diligence in the investigation underway, reopened more than four years and nine months ago. Lack of access to the file of the investigation 77