(the Armed Forces Secretariat of State, the National Police, and the National Investigations Department) with the “assistance” of the Attorney General of the Republic. The Joint Board began and conducted its investigation when an investigation under the criminal jurisdiction was underway (supra para. 112). 215. The Court has noted that the Police and Joint Boards entrusted with the investigation of the forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina conducted their investigations without the guidance of the Investigating Judge or the leadership of the Public Prosecution Service and were composed of members of the State’s security entities to which the individuals belonged who, among others, should have been investigated for the disappearance of Mr. González Medina. A necessary line of inquiry into what happened to Mr. González Medina should have focused on investigating the possible participation of senior members of the security forces and other State agents in the facts relating to the disappearance, as well as the indications that Mr. González Medina’s disappearance could have been perpetrated owing to his criticisms and accusations (supra paras. 94 to 98 and 150). The Court has verified that several statements made before the said extrajudicial boards provided elements that should have been investigated in relation to the possible detention of Narciso González Medina in the Armed Forces Secretariat of State, the National Police, the National Investigations Department, and in Air Force facilities (supra paras. 155 to 164). This meant that the investigators should have made an effort to take all necessary measures to clarify whether Mr. González Medina had been detained in the State’s security agencies for which they worked and whether their own colleagues and superiors had taken part in his disappearance. 216. In this regard, this Court has noted that the alleged relations of hierarchic subordination and dependence between those investigating the forced disappearance and those they should have been investigating could have led to constraints in the investigation. In this regard, the Joint Board itself stated that the Police Board had faced significant constraints to conduct the investigation, indicating, inter alia, the “impossibility of questioning certain ranks of the police and the military authorities to whom responsibility was attributed in the disappearance […], because this was subject to obtaining due authorization, specifically from those members of the military and/or members of the National Police of a higher rank. 255 217. The reference to these constraints also emerges, inter alia, from the testimony given before the Investigating Court by the person in charge of the Secret Service of the National Police in 1994. 256 This person was a member of the Police Board and, when he was asked who headed the investigations of the said Board, he responded that the members “always met with the then Head of the Police to share impressions and inform him of the status of the investigations and, on some occasions, he gave [them] guidance on the steps to take.” He also stated that the Police Board was faced with the “difficulty” that it could not investigate “the Chiefs of Staff of each of the military institutions,” because “it was impossible that […] a board composed of three colonels had the authority and power to investigate these individuals.” Moreover, the deponent added that they did not investigate the Chief of Staff of the Air Force because “he was a Major General and, when the Head of the Police was consulted about this, he told [them] that it was not necessary to investigate him, because the only purpose of that was to harm reputations.” 255 Report of the Joint Board, supra note 109, folio 3849. 256 Cf. Testimony given by Luis Manuel Tejeda Fernández before the Investigating Court on September 9, 1998 (merits file, tome V, folios 1853, 1855, 1856). 69