D.2) Influence of Narciso González Medina on Dominican society and public impact of his speeches and writings 145. With regard to the State’s argument concerning the supposed limited influence of Mr. González Medina (supra para. 85), the Court will refer to this because, in the instant case, the determination of this aspect is relevant in order to verify the circumstantial evidence provided by the Commission and the representatives concerning the alleged disappearance of Narciso González Medina. 146. The Court notes that it considered proved that Narciso González Medina was a wellknown activist and journalist critical of the Government, with a particular way of writing, using political satire, who stood out owing to his firm and intransigent positions (supra para. 94). According to the expert opinions received by the Court, Mr. González Medina “was very well known,” because his “radical and popular discourse” was inspired by the experiences of the working classes, and went back to those sectors which, in turn, were inspired by his social and political rebelliousness. In addition, on learning of Narciso González Medina’s disappearance, members of civil society and the country’s main associations of journalists protested demanding clarification of the facts. 181 In addition, the Court considers that the State’s arguments are unfounded, because its own actions and reactions to the disappearance of Mr. González Medina reflect the relevance and impact he had on Dominican society. Following his disappearance, two extrajudicial committees were established to investigate the facts, and the members of his family were received by the President of the Republic at the time, and by the Secretary of the Armed Forces (supra paras. 104, 105, 108 and 111). 147. Regarding the impact of his opinions, speeches and writings, the Court notes that the different deponents before the Court, his family and friends indicate as possible reasons for his disappearance, his article published in La Muralla, strongly criticizing President Balaguer, or the speech he gave in the UASD one day before his disappearance, when he denounced the electoral fraud and the alleged corruption of senior officials of the State’s security forces, calling for civil disobedience (supra para. 97). The only evidence provided by the State that includes a different opinion is the book by the journalist Oscar López Reyes in which he states that “[n]either the speech of Narcisazo in the UASD nor his article in La Muralla had any public impact,” contrary to the “resonance and effects” of the declarations of other journalists at the time concerning the alleged 1994 electoral fraud, without any attempts having been made on their life. 182 148. Regarding the State’s argument about the limited circulation of La Muralla, several deponents before this Court explained that, although this magazine was small and had a regional circulation, “it had enormous influence and penetration” and “it was a working tool and an accusatory instrument for many grass-roots groups that was distributed throughout the country.” Additionally, the Court takes into account the opinion of expert witness Robert Salvador Vargas that the coalitions of grass-roots organizations, where Mr. 181 Cf. Testimony provided by expert witness Robert Salvador Ramos Vargas on June 16, 2011, supra note 90, folios 1182 and 1183, and testimony provided by expert witness José Antinoe Fiallo Billini on June 16, 2011, supra note 85, folio 1174. 182 Cf. “Crímenes contra la prensa. Atentados and censuras en República Dominicana, 1844-2007,” supra note 89, folio 6328. 48