b) Regarding the investigation into the enforced disappearances, they
underlined that they were “surprised by the unfortunate conclusion reached
by the State when it found that ‘the probable responsibility of military
personnel was not proved,’ because a series of indications have always
existed allowing it to be inferred that soldiers committed the crime”;
c) Regarding the investigation into the whereabouts of the victims, they were
concerned that ‘this was conducted based on the crime of illegal deprivation
of liberty and not forced disappearance. In addition, they considered that “it
is not possible to discount that the beneficiary made the call [on February 3,
2010], merely because the telephone number was linked to probable acts of
extortion,” which resulted in the closure of one of the lines of investigation
(supra considering paragraph 8(b));
d) The State has still not implemented any of the measures and the last working
meeting was held on October 19, 2011. Furthermore, they considered such
meetings unsatisfactory because “they do not take into account the needs of
the family members who are beneficiaries, who are displaced, in hiding and
extremely fearful of the police, because the latter have been involved in acts
of harassment.” They considered that the “offer of house patrols, road
escorts […] and the other measures that entail the location and surveillance
of the beneficiaries do not meet the needs for protection”;
e) The State continues to hold the family and the representatives responsible for
the failure to implement provisional measures and measures of protection, as
well as for the “lack of progress in the investigation, because they have failed
to play an active role and contribute to the inquiries; thus, it holds them
responsible for the persistence of the disappearance of Rocío, Nitza Paola,
and Jose Ángel”;
f) The attacks on the Alvarado family (infra considering paragraph 15), of which
the State is aware, have not yet been investigated and remain in complete
impunity, and
g) They have not received any response with regard to the proposals they
presented on March 10, 2012, concerning specific measures in favor of the
beneficiaries.
10.
Additionally, with different briefs (supra having seen paragraph 4), the
representatives attached Recommendation 43/2011 of the Mexican National Human Rights
Commission (CNDH), “Concerning the case of the enforced disappearance of V1, V2, and
V3 in the Benito Juárez ejido, municipality of Buenaventura, Chihuahua.” The
Recommendation indicated that “it can be established that, in this case of the enforced
disappearance of V1, V2, and V3, the concurring and constituent elements of this illegal act
are present, namely: (a) the deprivation of their liberty; (b) the direct intervention of state
agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal
their fate or whereabouts.” Consequently, it recommended, among other matters, to the
Secretary for National Defense and the Secretary for Federal Public Security that they
“locate immediately and produce V1, V2, and V3 alive […] or, if applicable, produce their
mortal remains, […] assume the corresponding responsibility, and make reparation for the
damage caused to them and their families.” In this regard, in its report of December 7,
2011, the State indicated that the Secretariat of Public Security did not accept the
5