2
b)
on the following days the next of kin carried out several processes to
obtain information regarding their situation and whereabouts, among them: i)
they informed the town police, ii) they turned to the State Investigative Agency
of Nuevo Casas Grandes, where they verified that the van in which Nitza and
José were traveling when detained was located in the yard; iii) they filed an
order before the Public Prosecutors’ Office of Buenaventura, iv) they turned to
the barracks of the 35th Infantry Battalion, since they received information from
official sources indicating that their next of kin were at said battalion; v) a
complaint was filed at the offices of the Chihuahua Joint Operative in Ciudad
Juárez; and vi) they filed a complaint before the State’s Human Rights
Commission in Ciudad Juárez;
c)
on January 12, 2010, based on a communication1 received at the
Commission that described in detail the previous background and pursuant to
that stated in Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced
Disappearance of Persons, the Commission sent a request for urgent
information to the State so that it would, within 48 hours, inform of the
whereabouts of Rocío, Nitza, and José; their physical state; and any other
relevant information regarding their situation. On January 15, 2010, the State
presented its response, in which it indicated, inter alia, that:
i) the Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua started a preliminary
inquiry on December 31, 2009, “under the crime of illegal detainment;”
ii) the investigations “have not proven the existence of elements that define
a forced disappearance;”
iii) the Secretariat of National Defense informed that on January 9, 2010, it
held a meeting, in which the military staff stated that there was no
evidence that agents from the 35th Infantry Battalion had participated in
the alleged arrest; and
iv) the Attorney General of the Republic informed that after a search carried
out by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office “no registry of a ministerial
investigation or preliminary inquiry related to the alleged disappearance
of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José
Ángel Alvarado Herrera was found;”
d)
on March 1, 2010, the representatives forwarded a communication2 to
the Commission, through which they requested the adoption of precautionary
measures in favor of Rocío, Nitza, and José, fourteen of their next of kin, and
three representatives. Said communication included their observations to the
State’s report, it updated the information previously presented and they
referred to the context in which the facts occurred.3 The representatives
pointed out the existence of evidence that supposedly proves the participation
of 10 armed officers in uniform in the arrest of Rocío, Nitza, and José.
Regarding the investigations they indicated, inter alia, that:
i) in the dossier of the inquiry before the Attorney General of the State of
Chihuahua no diligence trying to locate the victims has been recorded,
nor has the protocol for the location of disappeared women in said State
been activated; and

1
The communication through which the Commission was informed of these facts was filed on January
8, 2010, by the Women’s Human Rights Center (CEDEHM), whose headquarters are in Chihuahua.
2
The communication was filed by CEDEHM, The Paso del Norte Human Rights Center, with
headquarters in Ciudad Juárez, and the Commission for the Solidarity and Defense of Human Rights, located
in the city of Chihuahua.
3
The petitioners made reference to the “[b]ackground and context of the military occupation and
violence in the State of Chihuahua” and to the “[s]pecific context in which the disappearance occurs [...].”

Select target paragraph3