* 264. Based on all the above, the Inter-American Court concludes that the investigations conducted by the Investigating Court, the Review Chamber, and the Public Prosecution Service were neither diligent nor effective to determine the whereabouts of Mr. González Medina, to establish what happened, and to identify and punish those responsible; moreover, they did not respect the guarantee of a reasonable time. The Court also concludes that the right of the family to have access to the file of the investigation reopened in 2007 by the Public Prosecution Service was violated. In addition, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention to adopt the necessary domestic provisions to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. González Medina. 265. Consequently, the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the rights embodied in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention by investigating the forced disappearance, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Narciso González Medina. In addition, the Court concludes that, owing to the absence of an effective investigation into the facts, and the prosecution and punishment of those responsible, the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Luz Altagracia Ramírez and of Ernesto, Rhina Yocasta, Jennie Rosanna and Amaury, all González Ramírez. 266. Finally, regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to access to information, to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family, the Court analyzed the alleged facts and the relevant arguments of the Commission and the representatives, in accordance with its competence ratione temporis, when ruling on the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention (supra paras. 233 to 236 and 250 to 254). The Court refers back to its analysis of the facts relating to the incineration and possible lost and alteration of official documents and their juridical consequences made in this chapter in relation to the lack of due diligence in the investigation of what happened to Mr. González Medina (supra paras. 233 to 236), as well as this Court’s ruling on the violation to the detriment of his family owing to their lack of access to the case file of the investigation reopened in 2007 (supra paras. 251 to 254). Likewise, the Court notes that, according to the body of evidence, the proven fact regarding the incineration of documents (supra para. 124) and the alleged facts about a possible lost and alteration of documents do not involve requests to state authorities for information by the family and, also, they would have happened before the Dominican Republic recognized the Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not incumbent on this Court to analyze them autonomously in order to determine whether they constitute violations of Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family. IX RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF NARCISO GONZÁLEZ MEDINA’S FAMILY A) Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 81