testified that they knew that Mr. González Medina was in specific State entities because they had been informed by people who had supposedly seen him. 190 According to these six statements, Narciso González Medina had been seen in the Intelligence Division or Directorate of the Armed Forces Secretariat of State (J-2), then in the Homicide Department of the National Police, subsequently in the Intelligence Department of the Dominican Air Force (A-2) and, at one point, in the National Investigations Department (DNI). The individuals who testified that they had seen or known of the presence of Mr. González Medina in the National Police and in the A-2 indicated that he was “bathed in blood” or “in a very bad state.” 191 156. The Court takes note that one of the individuals who testified before the Joint Board that he had seen Narciso González in the J-2 (specifically, a Sergeant Major stated that he had taken part in his detention and had taken him to the J-2), subsequently retracted his testimony before the Investigating Court (indicating that, previously, he had been confused and that, in fact, he had taken part in the detention of a General). 192 However, the Court points out that there is no record in the ruling of the Investigating Court or in the decision of the Review Chamber of any finding or assessment in this regard; or that an attempt was made to verify which version was correct, or to discover whether the deponent had changed his testimony owing to fear or any other motive. When retracting, the deponent indicated that he had detained another person, a General, and that he was changing his testimony because, previously “he was confused,” because he had been arrested after giving his first testimony owing to the investigation of this case and he “was upset at the time because he had never been detained, […] did not know what [he] was doing, was under great pressure.” 193 However, this Court finds it relevant that: (i) the initial testimony was corroborated by another person; 194 (ii) the deponent had expressed “fear that [he] would be 190 (1) A “supplier” to the Armed Forces and the National Police testified that she recalled an occasion when she was in the office of the then Armed Forces Secretary of State, when he received a telephone call and, after hanging up, he mentioned to her that it was “inconvenient” that he had been called with regard to Narciso González Medina’s disappearance, and remarked that he “did not know why they were calling him on this matter, because he knew nothing about it,” and that even though “he had been informed that Professor Narciso González had been detained, […] he had ordered that [Mr. González] be taken to the Police,” and “that each person should assume his own responsibility. Summary of the statement made by Paulina Alba before the Seventh Investigating Court on February 19, 1999, cited in the Investigating Court’s ruling of August 24, 2001, supra note 105, folio 4496. (2) The brother of a deceased Army Captain testified that, before he died, his brother had told him that he had seen Narciso González Medina “in the Air Force A-2 [or] in the Mercadito,” after May 26, 1994, “in a very bad condition.” Summary of the testimony given by Carlos Batista Rivas on November 11, 1996, and November 22, 1998, before the Seventh Investigating Court, cited in the Investigating Court’s ruling of August 24, 2001, supra note 105, folios 4329 to 4331 and 4441 to 4447. Also cf. Statement made by Carlos Batista Rivas before the Joint Board on June 27, 1998 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 13, folio 4067), and summary of the statement made by Carlos Batista Rivas before the Review Chamber on September 20, 2002, cited in the decision of December 18, 2002, of the Santo Domingo Review Chamber (file of attachments to the application, attachment 15, folio 4583). 191 Testimony given by Junior Sarita Lebrón before the Seventh Investigating Court on August 19 and 21, 1998, supra note 189, folios 1833, 1836 and 1841, and statement made by Carlos Batista Rivas before the Joint Board on June 27, 1998, supra note 190, folio 4068. 192 During the criminal proceedings, the Sergeant Major (supra note 189), who was then retired, retracted the said testimony and indicated that the operation had been “at the time of the elections [… and that they] went to that place to look for, I believe it was General Mota Henríquez.” Testimony of Juan Dionisio Marte before the Seventh Investigating Court on January 12, 1999, supra note 189, folios 1903 and 1904. 193 Testimony of Juan Dionisio Marte before the Seventh Investigating Court on January 12, 1999, supra note 189, folio 1904. 194 He commented on this information to a Captain who, when testifying, confirmed what he had been told, including “the pressure he was under.” Testimony of Juan Dionisio Marte before the Joint Board on May 15, 1998, supra note 189, folio 1978), and similarly, cf. statement made by Antonio Quezada Pichardo before the National District Prosecutor on March 12, 1998, supra note 189, folios 4005 and 4006. 51