4 petitioners. Likewise, they stated that it took FEVIMTRA almost two months to send an official letter to the representative of the telephone brand requesting information of the mentioned call made by Nitza, thus its results are null; and h) “[b]ased on the available information, the Commission decided, motu propio, to request the Inter-American Court for provisional measures.” 3. The arguments of the Commission used as grounds for its request for provisional measures, among them: a) the set of elements present in this case “proves prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damages to Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes (18 years old), Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza (31 years old), and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera;” b) “under the standard of assessment prima facie characteristic of the proceedings of provisional measures, […] there is serious evidence” that said people were deprived of their freedom by State security agents on December 29, 2009, without having information on their fate or whereabouts. Among said evidence the Commission referred to: i) testimonies of several of the next of kin who state they were present at the time of the arrest or that were informed of what happened by other people; ii) statement made by state authorities in the sense that Rocío, Nitza, and José were arrested within a raid, indicating even the military garrison where they could be found; iii) the testimony of a next of kin that assured he had seen “the van from which José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza were taken at the time of their arrest” at the State Investigation Agency at Nuevo Casas Grandes a few days after their disappearance; iv) official document of January 5, 2010, which acknowledges that said van, belonging to the Alvarado family, is at a state dependency; v) that the next of kin that visited the military installations were not allowed access to those installations to confirm if Rocío, Nitza, and José were there; and vi) that on February 3, 2010, a call from Nitza was received in which she stated she was alive, that she was afraid, and that someone come pick her up; however, the authorities have not established the origin or geographical location from where the call was made; c) “the response given by the State of Mexico has been insufficient and does not correspond to the extreme gravity of a situation in which there is evidence that a forced disappearance has been committed.” The State has limited its actions to starting inquiries in different instances, “which have not carried out minimum diligences to find the possible beneficiaries.” The only entity that carried out a diligence to look for them was the NHRC, which does not have the mandate or legal mechanisms to respond to a forced disappearance with the necessary diligence. Likewise, follow-up has not been offered to the testimonies offered by the next of kin; the reasons why the van belonging to the Alvarado family was under state custody precisely days after the disappearance has not been investigated; and efforts have not been made to establish the origin of Nitza’s call on February 3, 2010. Additionally, the State has indicated that there are no elements regarding the participation of military officials in the facts, without having received from the entities in charge of the investigations an explanation on how they reached that conclusion, and without the State having informed of specific actions to determine the whereabouts of Rocío, Nitza, and José. Upon not carrying out the minimum diligences to disprove the evidence regarding said participation, “the State is assuming that it is not a forced disappearance;” and