be examined,” and that “one of them is his suicide,” giving the greatest weight to the latter. Nevertheless, the State accepted that “to date his exact whereabouts are unknown.” The said hypothesis of suicide has not been verified by the State, even though, from the start of the investigation into the facts of this case before the Police Board, aspects of Mr. González Medina’s private life were investigated and also the possibility that he had committed suicide. 207 Moreover, this is one of the four hypotheses proposed by the Public Prosecution Service in the investigation reopened four years ago (supra paras. 122 and 123 and footnote 143). 166. In addition, this Court considers that the said suicide hypothesis is not supported by evidence that makes it coherent. To the contrary, there is evidence to disprove it. In this regard, the Court takes into account the opinion of the expert witness psychiatrist Secundino Palacios who stated that Narciso González Medina “did not have a medical history of depression” and that, from a clinical point of view, the said hypothesis was inconsistent with a person who “during the days and months before his disappearance, was involved in numerous teaching and political events [… and] has not been asserted in this case by doctors, psychiatrists or neurologists, but only by a few journalists who have no training in the field of emotional or mental health.” 208 Similarly, the neurologist who attended Mr. González Medina declared before the Review Chamber, inter alia, that he did “not believe the suicide hypothesis was possible; […] he did not want to kill himself, he was not a depressive, he talked of his plans normally; he was full of life; […] he was a fighter […] that hypothesis is a very remote possibility.” 209 167. It should also be stressed that numerous statements exist in both the domestic investigation and in the proceedings before this Court in which friends and acquaintances of Mr. González Medina reject the possibility that he committed suicide. 210 In contrast, the State supported the suicide hypothesis on the basis of a statement made in the domestic investigation by a friend of the presumed victim, two documents that were not admitted by the Court (supra paras. 10 and 77), and the conclusions of a journalist. 211 Even though, 207 Cf. Testimony of Eduardo Sánchez Ortiz before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held in this case on June 28, 2011; testimony given by witness Luis Eduardo Lora Iglesias (Huchi Lora) on June 26, 2011, supra note 88, folio 1114. In addition, in its answering brief, the State affirmed that “[t]he Police Board conducted investigations into the relations of the victim with his wife, his family, and his friends. It also investigated his personal preferences and other matters related to his private life that might explain his disappearance.” The State’s answering brief (merits file, tome II, folio 700, para. 97). 208 Affidavit made by Doctor Secundino Palacios on June 16, 2011 (merits file, tome III, folios 1151 to 1153). During the public hearing before this Court, the State affirmed that psychologists and psychiatrists had been consulted with regard to the document found, which was supposedly related to the hypothesis of suicide. Nevertheless, the State did not offer any evidence to the Court, and there is nothing in the information provided on the investigation reopened in 2007, because it was not mentioned in the Prosecutor’s report on the measures taken under investigation reopened in 2007, and the Court was not provided with the complete case file of this investigation, even though the State was asked to provide a copy as helpful evidence (supra paras. 76 and 77). 209 Testimony given by Dr. Valenzuela on September 20, 2002, before the Review Chamber, supra note 97, folios 1960 and 1961. 210 Cf. Summary of the testimony given by Roberto José Santana Sánchez before the Investigating Court, supra note 99, folio 4387, where he indicated: “knowing Narcizaso’s ideas and achievements, it is difficult to presume suicide or an accident.” Also, cf. Testimony provided by expert witness Secundino Palacios on June 16, 2011, supra note 208, folios 1151 to 1153; testimony given by witness Luis Eduardo Lora Iglesias (Huchi Lora) on June 26, 2011, supra note 88, folio 1114; testimony given by witness Manuel de Jesús de la Rosa Hidalgo on June 16, 2011, supra note 100, folios 1138 and 1139, and summary of the statement made by Américo Dante Mejía Lama before the Seventh Investigating Court, cited in the August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court, supra note 105, folios 4521 and 4522. 211 Cf. “Crímenes contra la prensa. Atentados and censuras en República Dominicana, 1844-2007,” supra note 89, folio 6328; affidavit made by witness Oscar López Reyes on June 17, 2011 (merits file, tome III, folios 1092 to 1094); testimony given by Jimmy Sierra before the Prosecutor on August 9, 2010 (file of attachments to the 56