was almost under military control, and repressive methods were used against those who protested. 172 In addition, the Court takes notes of the opinion provided by the historian José Antinoe Fiallo Billini in his expert evidence, explaining that, in the Dominican Republic, even though “the most drastic remedies were not needed” generally to confront “a very extreme situation of crisis of the political power [such as the government was experiencing at that time], it was decided to do this,” because a “single forced disappearance in a context of fraud and repression is extremely relevant as an attempt to send a message of fear and alarm.” 173 According to the evidence provided by the State itself, “[t]he press has been a victim of censure and arbitrary measures during each institutional conflict or threat of Government destabilization.” 174 140. Moreover, the Court observes that it has received several statements that reveal a pattern of harassment and surveillance of journalists and those who criticized the Government of the time. According to these statements “the exercise of journalism was always a risk, especially at that time.” 175 Moreover, public complaints were made regarding the supposed police harassment and ill-treatment of journalists, including the former Director of the magazine in which Mr. González Medina had published his article on President Balaguer, and by “opposition activists,” regarding whom it was said that their arrests had “become routine.” In addition, there were reports of “beatings and torture against those detained on either political charges or for common offenses.” 176 141. The evidence provided by the State itself in its defense reveals the harassment and surveillance to which those who criticized the regime or insinuated that fraud had been committed in the 1994 elections were subjected. The conclusions of the Joint Board reveal the arrest, without a court order, of two generals, because “security forces obtained a recording” of a conversation in which one of them criticized Balaguer because he was attempting to ignore the will of the people, and said that this must be avoided and, during this conversation, he mentioned the other general. 177 The Joint Board concluded that a witness who said he had taken part in the operation to arrest Narciso González Medina had, in fact, participated in the detention of two Army generals (infra para. 156 and footnote 195). However, the State did not respond to the Court’s request for helpful 172 Cf. Testimony given by witness Manuel Jesús de la Rosa Hidalgo on June 16, 2011, supra note 100, folios 1139 and 1140; testimony given by witness Luis Eduardo Lora Iglesias (Huchi Lora) on June 26, 2011, supra note 88, folio 1117; newspaper article entitled “Nueve días de tensión,” supra note 92, folio 4847; newspaper article entitled “Embrollo electoral apunta hacia crisis política,” supra note 92, folio 4849, and article published in Rumbo magazine of July 20 to 26, 1994 entitled “La represión de moda” (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 9, folio 4852). 173 1176. Testimony provided by expert witness José Antinoe Fiallo Billini on June 16, 2011, supra note 85, folio 174 Book entitled “Crímenes contra la prensa. Atentados and censuras en República Dominicana, 1844-2007,” supra note 89, folio 6363. 175 In this regard, the deponent added: “[i]t is the only time I have had a guard at my home and it until the crisis was over.” Testimony given by witness Luis Eduardo Lora Iglesias (Huchi Lora) on June 26, supra note 88, folios 1112 and 1113. Also, cf. Testimony given by witness Juan Bolívar Díaz on June 16, supra note 98, folio 1126, and testimony provided by expert witness José Antinoe Fiallo Billini on June 16, supra note 85, folio 1176. lasted 2011, 2011, 2011, 176 Testimony provided by expert witness Robert Salvador Ramos Vargas on June 16, 2011, supra note 90, folios 1180 and 1185, and newspaper article entitled “La represión de moda,” supra note 172, folio 4852. 177 Cf. Statement made by retired Brigadier General Jesús Manuel Mota Henríquez on May 18, 1998, before the Joint Board, included in the statement made by Jesús Manuel Mota Henríquez before the Joint Board on May 22, 1998 (file of attachments to the answering brief, attachment 6, folios 5660 to 5662); Report of the Joint Board, supra note 109, folios 3850 and 3856, and statement made by Constantino Matos Villanueva before the Joint Board, supra note 171, folio 5636. 46