197. Regarding the facts analyzed in this chapter, the Court refers back to the facts relating to the investigations that it found established in the previous chapter (supra paras. 99 to 123). In keeping with the decision taken with regard to its competence ratione temporis (supra paras. 45 to 61), the Court can rule on the facts that occurred as of March 25, 1999. The facts that took place before that date will be taken into account as background information to the case; however, the Court is unable to determine any legal consequences in relation to the alleged international responsibility with regard to them. B) Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 198. The Commission argued that the State “had not conducted a diligent investigation, within a reasonable time and in keeping with the guarantees of due process, into the victim’s forced disappearance as a means of guaranteeing the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Narciso González Medina, as well as to ensure the rights to truth, justice and reparation of his family.” In addition to arguing violations arising from the proceedings of the Police and Joint Boards, regarding the judicial investigation, it stated, inter alia, that: the said proceedings “did not constitute an effective remedy either”; “some of the acts and omissions […] allow it to determine” that due diligence was not respected, and “logical lines of inquiry were not pursued or evidence examined that, at a glance, would have been able to shed light on the facts of the case and, in particular, resolve several of the inconsistencies and alleged contradictions argued by the judicial authorities in first and second instance.” In its final arguments the Commission added that another factor that had contributed to impunity was the failure to define forced disappearance as a crime. It indicated that the guarantee of a reasonable time had been violated, and that “there had been periods of inactivity that the State has been unable to justify.” It also argued that “no specific measures were adopted to establish the fate or whereabouts of Narciso González or of his mortal remains.” 199. In addition to alleging violations arising from the investigations conducted by the Police and Joint Boards, the representatives affirmed that the facts have remained in impunity and argued the ineffectiveness and lack of diligence of the criminal judicial investigations, indicating the supposed acts and omissions of the State authorities in this regard. They also referred to “other actions designed to conceal the authorship of the disappearance,” and affirmed that the guarantee of a reasonable time had been violated. In addition, they alleged the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and the violation of the right to the truth, “protected by Articles 1(1), 8, 13 and 25 [of the American Convention] taken as a whole,” to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family. The representatives asked the Court to “determine that, in view of the failure to specifically define the crime, including the minimum elements established by case law, […] the absence of appropriate investigation protocols, and an adequate punishment that permits the eradication of the forced disappearance of persons in the Dominican Republic, the State has violated the obligations contained in Articles 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention.” 200. Both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives argued that the State had violated Article 13 of the American Convention to the detriment of the family of Mr. González Medina owing to the alleged lack of access to information related to his detention and subsequent disappearance. In the application, the Commission based its arguments on the alleged destruction and alteration of records of the individuals detained in official facilities to which Narciso González Medina could have been taken. The representatives indicated that the Dominican Republic had never provided the victim’s family with a copy of the investigation conducted by the Police Board, or of the definitive investigation carried out 65