5 d) the situation described makes it improbable that, with the mechanisms used up to now, the whereabouts of Rocío, Nitza, and José will be determined, “which increases the situation of vulnerability, lack of protection, and risk of irreparable damages.” 4. The request of the Inter-American Commission for the to Court, based on Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure, order the State to comply with the following measures: a) Adopt urgent measures to locate and protect the life and right to humane treatment of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and immediately inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and their next of kin; b) Investigate the facts that motivated the present request for provisional measures by the authorities of the ordinary jurisdiction and not the military one; c) Coordinate the provisional measures with the next of kin of the possible beneficiaries. 5. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of May 14, 2010, through which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, requested that the State forward, no later than May 19, 2010, the observations considered appropriate regarding the request for provisional measures filed by the Inter-American Commission. 6. The brief presented by Mexico on May 19, 2010, and its annex, through which it presented “the summary of the work meeting that took place on t[hat same] day in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, in which the institutions from the Mexican government that are involved in this matter established the measures to be followed.” Likewise, the State informed that on May 20, 2010, “it would send the Tribunal a detailed report on this matter.” 7. The brief presented by Mexico on May 21, 2010, through which it presented its observations to the request for provisional measures. In its observations, the State indicated that “it reproduces the report regarding the implementation of protection measures, prepared by the Secretariat of the Interior […].” Mexico informed that on May 19, 2010, a meeting was held with the next of kin of Rocío, Nitza, and José and their representatives, where “the corresponding agreements could not be reached and due to matters of previously established agendas some of the heads of the Dependencies involved had to leave […].” Regarding the progress made in the search and investigation the State informed, inter alia, the following: i) Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua: “it is completely false that the reasons why the van [in which Nitza and José were allegedly traveling on the day of their disappearance] was under state custody were not investigated.” Said van was the “object of a seizure” by the Ministerial Police of Nuevo Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, “with the corresponding chain of custody.” The vehicle was delivered to its owner, María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza, “having previously taken pictures and conducted a criminal search on the inside.” Regarding the tracking of the phone call that was allegedly received from Nitza, the telephone company informed that it is not possible to provide the information associated to the line from which Nitza allegedly made the call, “since it was acquired through the PRE PAID rate plan” and it