b) c) d) e) regard to beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela. In this regard, it indicated that it had given a response to the petitions made during that meeting in a later meeting held on March 4, 2011, but that during this latter meeting "it was not possible to reach the agreements that were indispensable for the implementation of the provisional measures;" highlighted "the lack of willingness of the beneficiaries to assist in the investigations" carried out by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic toward locating beneficiaries Rocío Irene, Nitza Paola and José Ángel Alvarado. In this sense, it stated that "although elements of that office approached Mr. Alvarado Favela, he did not wish to collaborate in the investigations, the same as [when] he himself visited the offices of the [Attorney General];” reported that in the March 4, 2011, meeting, in response to the requirement that the relatives of the disappeared victims provide "more information" in order for the investigations to be carried out, representative Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez responded that "they will in no way provide statements and that the information provided [on the investigations] [was] not sufficient." The State added that the representative refused "to place" her comments in the investigation’s record and left together with the relatives of the presumably disappeared victims "without even signing the record that she had had access the preliminary investigation file;" clarified that the State "has no intention of applying any of the coercive measures provided for by law to the beneficiaries in order to get them to appear," and that it was fully available to provide them with the necessary legal guarantees to adjust the proceeding to their special needs under the terms of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of the General Assembly of the United Nations, as well as to keep them safe when they decide to appear before the authorities, and indicated as an example of that willingness the facilities provided by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic to beneficiaries of the measures in order for them to be able to participate in the investigation proceedings, despite which, and "for quite respectable reasons," the beneficiaries have not participated as "required of them." 11. In particular, with regard to the request for a broadening of these provisional measures, Mexico indicated that: a) With regard to the relatives of the beneficiaries, it is "fully available to adopt the measures" that were handed down by the Court, and toward doing so, the authorities in charge have held working meetings with the representatives of the beneficiaries in which those representatives put forward specific petitions for addressing the situation of the beneficiaries. However, it indicated that it has not been possible to reach useful agreements for determining what actions to take "given the posture of the representatives of the beneficiaries" and their reticence toward reaching an agreement with the State on the actions to take in order to provide protection to the beneficiaries. Regarding this, it indicated as an example the fact that during the aforementioned meeting on March 4, 2011, the representatives left after making the statements that they felt were pertinent without allowing for "the building of the agreements necessary to continue implementing the provisional measures." In this sense, Mexico "urged the InterAmerican Commission to serve as an intermediary with the representatives of [the beneficiaries]," given that without the necessary dialogue between the parties it would be very difficult to establish the measures necessary to guarantee the rights of the beneficiaries, and b) with regard to the representatives of the beneficiaries, the facts presented by the Commission as the factual basis of its request for the broadening of the measures make no reference to the situation of the representatives proposed as beneficiaries of these measures. The State argued that the Commission did not 4