State in May 1994 when Mr. González Medina disappeared should be tried for having “participated in his illegal detention,” an offense that was punished with “civil demotion.” 266 When analyzing forced disappearance, it is appropriate to consider that those who participate in it do not necessarily do so from the start, as occurred with this attribution of responsibility when the Judge took into account that, according to the probative elements, the accused was not the person who first ordered the detention of Mr. González Medina, but that he had taken part in the deprivation of his liberty subsequently. However, the Court finds that the mere attribution of responsibility to a person for the said deprivation of liberty does not involve the determination of responsibilities for other conducts, or for the continuing violation that was being perpetrated during the seven years that had elapsed at that time with no knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. González Medina. E.1.b) Omission in following up on logical lines of inquiry and in gathering evidence 232. The Court reiterates that in cases of forced disappearance it is of vital importance that the authorities in charge of the investigation pay special attention to the circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions (supra para. 134), thus avoiding omissions in gathering evidence and following up on logical lines of investigation. 267 233. In this regard, the Court finds that the fact that not all the elements of the forced disappearance were taken into considered is also reflected in the absence of logical lines of investigation into Mr. González Medina’s forced disappearance that followed up on probative elements and indications of decisive importance that pointed to the participation of State agents in his disappearance, his detention in several State security agencies, and that official documents relevant for the investigation had been lost, destroyed or altered. In addition, the Court notes that there were omissions in the collection of evidence that related to relevant aspects to determine what happened to Mr. González Medina, and in an inclusive assessment of all the probative elements and indications that could have been useful to clarify what happened to him. 234. First, the Court has noted 268 the absence of a line of inquiry that would have followed up on the indications of loss, alteration and destruction of official documents that emerged from several statements made before the Joint Board and in the judicial investigation, 269 as 266 August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court, supra note 105, folio 4537. 267 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 253, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 146. 268 The Court made this finding based on the judicial decisions provided. The case file of the judicial investigation was not provided to the body of evidence. 269 Different statements made before the Joint Board and before the Investigating Judge contain elements indicating that duty rosters corresponding to the Intelligence Division or Directorate of the Armed Forces Secretariat of State (J-2) and the Air Force Intelligence Department (A-2) “disappeared” or were altered at the onset of Mr. González Medina’s disappearance. In this regard, the Court has verified the existence of the following statements: (a) testimony of Antonio Quezada Pichardo of March 12, 1998, before the National District Prosecutor, supra note 189, folios 4014 and 4016. The testimony of Mr. Quezada Pichardo was not assessed in the Joint Board’s report and he was not summoned to appear in the investigation conducted before the Seventh Investigating Court or by the Review Chamber; (b) Testimony of June 2, 1998, given by Leonardo A. Reyes Bencosme before the Joint Board (file of attachments to the application, attachment 13, folios 3885 to 3887), and summary of testimony of January 10, 1997, given by Leonardo Alcides Reyes Bencosme before the Investigating Court, cited in the August 24, 2001, ruling of the Investigating Court (file of attachments to the application, attachment 14, folio 4361); (c) Testimony of January 27, 1999, given by Manuel Concepción Pérez Vólquez before the Seventh Investigating Court (merits file, tome V, folios 1933 to 1934), and (d) Testimony of March 23, 1999, given by Francisco Dolores Estevez Ramírez before the Seventh Investigating Court (merits file, tome V, folio 1948). 73