27 i. The activities of Saúl Godínez, as a trade union leader, were of the type that were especially subjected to official repression. He was a leader of a teachers' group who had participated in several strikes and at the time of his disappearance he was involved in the preparation of a new strike (testimony of Miguel Angel Pavón Salazar, Ramón Custodio López and Enmidida Escoto de Godínez). These activities were of the type considered "dangerous" by those who carried out disappearances at that time (testimony of Miguel Angel Pavón Salazar, Ramón Custodio López and Florencio Caballero). ii. There are also indications that shortly prior to his disappearance, he had been threatened, watched and followed (testimony of Enmidida Escoto de Godínez and Elsa Rosa Escoto Escoto). iii There are indications that he was captured in a desolate area in the manner in which disappearances were usually carried out (testimony of Enmidida Escoto de Godínez and Elsa Rosa Escoto Escoto) and that he was held in places of detention under the control of Honduran Officials (testimony of Alejandrina Cruz). iv. In the case of Saúl Godínez, there was the same failure of the Armed Forces and the Government to investigate and reveal his whereabouts, and the same ineffectiveness of the courts where three writs of habeas corpus and a criminal complaint were brought, as in other cases of disappearances (testimony of Miguel Angel Pavón Salazar, Ramón Custodio López, Enmidida Escoto de Godínez, Alejandrina Cruz, press clippings and documentary evidence). v. The only explanation intimated by Honduran authorities regarding the disappearance of Saúl Godínez was the suggestion that he had joined subversive groups or had gone to Cuba. This latter explanation was even given by the judge before whom a criminal complaint was brought. No action was taken on that complaint (testimony of Alejandrina Cruz). The same suggestion is found in documents provided to the Commission by the Government (written statements of Sergeant Félix Pedro García Rodríguez, Víctor Manuel Meza Argueta, Ciriaco Castillo and Major Juan Blas Salazar Meza). The fact that none of those whose statements appear in these documents was offered as a witness by the Government and that the statements were not corroborated with any other evidence, far from proving the truth of this rumor, rather shows an attempt to link Godínez to activities considered dangerous to national security. vi. Other than the above, there has been no other attempt by the Government to explain the facts nor any statement offered to prove that Saúl Godínez had been kidnapped by common criminals or by other persons unrelated to the practice of disappearances existing at that time, or that he had disappeared voluntarily. The defense of the Government rested solely on the lack of direct proof, which, as the Court has already said (supra 140-41) is inadequate and insufficient in cases such as this. vii. The very existence of a practice of disappearances is a relevant factor within the framework set out to establish a judicial presumption (supra 128-30).