4 though members of that office approached Mr. Alvarado Favela, he did not wish to collaborate with the investigations, just as he refused to do so [when] he went to the [Attorney General’s] Office”; c) Reported that in the meeting on March 4, 2011, following the request for “further information” from the next of kin of the alleged missing persons in order to assist the investigation, the representative Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez responded that “they have no intention of giving a statement and that the information they had been given [about the investigation] was insufficient.” It added that the representative refused to “record” her observations in the investigation and abandoned the office together with the next of kin of the alleged missing persons “without even signing the record of access to the preliminary inquiry”; d) Clarified that it “has no intention of using any of the legal means of coercion available to obtain the beneficiaries’ presence,” and that it was completely willing to provide them with the necessary legal guarantees to adapt the proceedings to their special needs, pursuant to the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and to ensure their safety when they decide to appear before the authorities, and e) Indicated as an example of this willingness, the facilities that the Attorney General’s Office has offered the beneficiaries of the measures so that they can participate in the investigation process, despite which, “for eminently respectable reasons,” the beneficiaries have not participated to the extent “required of them.” 11. In particular, with regard to the request to expand the present provisional measures, Mexico indicated that: a) Concerning the next of kin of the beneficiaries, it is “fully prepared to adopt the measures” ordered by the Court and, to this end, the competent authorities have held working meetings with the representatives in which the latter have made specific requests to address the situation of the said beneficiaries. However, it indicated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on the next measures to adopt “owing to the position adopted by the beneficiaries’ representatives” and their unwillingness to come to an agreement with the State about protective measures for the beneficiaries. In this regard, it cited as an example the fact that at the said March 4, 2011, meeting, the representatives withdrew after stating their position, without allowing “the negotiation of the necessary agreements to continue implementing the provisional measures.” In this regard, Mexico “urged the Inter-American Commission to serve as a liaison with the representatives of [the beneficiaries],” because without the necessary communication between the parties, it would be very complicated to establish the necessary measures to guarantee the beneficiaries’ rights, and b) Regarding the representatives who have been proposed as beneficiaries of these measures, the facts alleged by the Commission as the factual basis for its request to expand the measures do not contain any reference to their situation. The State considered that the Commission had not presented specific facts to justify the request for measures for these individuals, nor had it indicated that any of them had been the victim of acts of violence or threats because of the present matter. Hence, the situation of extreme gravity and urgency had not been proved. Mexico also noted that the intended beneficiaries, Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez and the other members of the Centro de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres [Center for Women’s Human Rights] (CEDEHM), are protected by precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission that are duly being implemented. 12. The Inter-American Commission submitted its request for provisional measures at a time when the Court was not in session. Under Article 27(6) of the Rules of Procedure,