before the Court, the State offered as evidence the sworn written statement of the said friend of Mr. González Medina and of another person, it did not provide them (supra para. 76). Moreover, the Dominican Republic did not provide the explanation requested by the Court as to how this hypothesis addressed the absence of the mortal remains (supra para. 76 and footnote 15). In addition, the Court notes that, in the instant case, witnesses and family have denounced that they have been harassed and threatened presumably related to the investigation of this case, which has required the Inter-American Commission to adopt precautionary measures and this Court to adopt provisional measures, 212 and this, prima facie, is not consequent with the hypothesis of suicide. 168. Furthermore, the Court notes that it is contradictory that the State exempts itself from international responsibility based on what it considers a hypothesis. The Court underscores that two of the prosecutors who took part in the investigation stated that the hypothesis that Mr. González Medina had been detained “by the National Police or another State security agency” was also being investigated (supra para. 123 and note 143). In this regard, in the request for collaboration sent to the FBI, the State indicated that “[t]he investigators ha[d] reliable information that [the person it wished to interview] was one of the people who took part in the detention of another Dominican citizen in May 1994.” Consequently, the State’s categorical denial of the forced disappearance does not reflect the reality of the investigations, but constitutes a biased version of what has been investigated, based on some selected pieces of evidence. 169. Moreover, since 17 years and 9 months have passed since the facts, and the State has not provided evidence to the proceedings in this case that would contradict the existence of the forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina, the Court considers it reasonable to accord significance to the evidence and the series of indications that emerge from the case file (supra para. 124) concerning the perpetration of the forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina by State authorities. To conclude the contrary would mean allowing the State to shield itself behind the negligence and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation to evade its international responsibility. 213 170. Based on all the above considerations, the Court finds that it has been proved sufficiently that Narciso González Medina was forcibly disappeared on May 26, 1994, and that his whereabouts are still unknown at this date, based on: (1) the alleged context at the time of the facts; (2) the influence of Narciso González Medina on Dominican society and the public impact of his speeches and writings; (3) the surveillance to which Narciso González was subject before his disappearance; (4) the testimony of the four individuals who stated that they had seen or were aware of the presence of Narciso González Medina in answer to the application, tome II, attachment 10, folios 6016 to 6023), and Prosecutor’s report of September 26, 2011, supra note 143, folios 1784 to 1789. 212 In an Order of August 30, 2011, the Inter-American Court required the State to adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mario José Martín Suriel Núñez, who had been a witness before the Court, owing to an alleged car chase he experienced “of such magnitude that it placed his life and personal integrity at grave risk,” alleged surveillance that his neighbors had observed, and anonymous call to his telephone, as well as his consequent decision to abandon his home, which revealed prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justified the adoption of provisional measures in his favor. On that occasion, “[t]he Court found sufficient reasons to presume that the acts of harassment and the threats against Mr. Suriel Núñez could be related to his participation in this case.” On November 8, 1996, the Inter-American Commission asked the Dominican Republic to adopt urgent precautionary measures to ensure the life and personal integrity of Virgilio Almánzar, Tomás Castro and Luz Altagracia Ramírez and other witnesses in the case submitted to the consideration of the Commission as No. 11,324 (supra paras. 63 and 107 and notes 66 and 121). 213 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 167, para. 97, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 162, para. 104. 57