series of measures, including “interviews” with members of the family and acquaintances of Narciso González Medina, and other persons; the offer of a reward of “one million pesos to anyone providing specific, relevant and useful information” about the case; monitoring the telephone calls received in response to this offer, and the search for a letter with the testimony of Narciso González Medina’s brother in order to validate its content. 144 The above-mentioned report of the Public Prosecutor concludes by indicating that, following these measures, “the Public Prosecutor has found no new elements that would permit it make progress in the investigation into the disappearance of Professor Narciso González.” 145 In addition, in its answering brief, the State indicated that another measure taken during the said reopening was an interview conducted by “the Public Prosecution Service, in collaboration with the FBI.” However, the State did not provide a copy of this interview, but merely attached a copy of the note dated September 17, 2011, addressed to the Embassy of the United States of America, indicating that “members of the Public Prosecution Service need[ed] to travel to Laurence, Massachusetts, to interview [a Dominican citizen who resides legally in the United States of America, because] the investigators have reliable information that […] he was one of the people who took part in the detention of another Dominican citizen in May 1994, who as of that time is disappeared.” 146 B.9) Regarding the destruction of documents 124. On January 9, 2008, the Legal Affairs Office of the Dominican Air Force asked the Executive Officer of the Air Force for the “first and last names of the members of this institution who were on duty on May 26, 27 and 28, 1994.” 147 In response to this request, on January 10, 2008, the Executive Officer of the “San Isidro” Air Base of the Dominican Air Force indicated that “routine correspondence dated prior to 2000, including the duty rosters, has been incinerated, because it had accumulated and there was not enough space to keep it.” 148 C) General considerations of the Court 125. In the instant case, a dispute exists between the parties regarding whether the State is internationally responsible for the presumed forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina. On the one hand, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives argue that the participation of State agents in the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. González Medina has been proved and, on the other hand, the State is emphatic in affirming that the his body would never be found.” Report of the National District Prosecutor on the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of Narciso González dated September 26, 2011 (merits file, tome V, folio 1785). Also, cf. testimony given by Dante Castillo Medina on June 22, 2011, supra note 142, folio 1088 and 1089. 144 Cf. Report of the National District Prosecutor on the reopening of the investigation, supra note 143, folios 1785 to 1789; testimony given by Dante Castillo Medina on June 22, 2011, supra note 142, folios 1088 and 1089, and testimony given by Francisco José Polanco Ureña on June 22, 2011, supra note 142, folios 1090 and 1091. 145 1789. Report of the National District Prosecutor on the reopening of the investigation, supra note 143, folio 146 Letter of the Attorney General of the Dominican Republic of September 17, addressed to the Ambassador of the United States of America to the Dominican Republic (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome II, attachment 14, folio 6398). 147 Note No. 00010 of January 9, 2008, from the Legal Adviser of the Dominican Air Force to the Executive Official of the Dominican Air Force (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 15, folio 4937). 148 Note of January 10, 2008, from the Executive Official of the “San Isidro” Air Base of the Dominican Air Force to the Legal Adviser of the Dominican Air Force (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 16, folio 4939). 41