Prosecuting Attorney of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, who identified a number of irregularities in the case noting that the letters that were ordered to be issued “may or may not have been written and sent or could have been misplaced.” In response to such a serious determination, the case file shows no record of any follow up or triggering of any mechanism to determine liability, or seriously reopening the investigation, which was closed only a few months later on the grounds of lack of evidence and without any measure being taken to amend the irregularities that had been ascertained and make up for the failure to gather evidence. 63. This was also the case in the administrative proceeding before the Juvenile Council, in which only statements were taken and one on-site visit was conducted in the same area of the Sabanilla river where it was alleged that the weapons transaction had taken place between Antonio González and Juan López. However, even though in this proceeding the alleged deprivation of liberty of Antonio González was investigated, he was never searched for in Pasijal Morelos, where the main person suspected of his disappearance specifically resided. 64. Lastly, as has been previously determined by the Commission and recently upheld by the Court, the amparo proceeding in force at that time in Mexico, which made it an essential requirement for the victim to say where he or she was being held, in order to have grounds for the claim, was wholly unsuitable to determine the whereabouts of a missing person and ineffective in cases of forced disappearances.151 Accordingly, both the regulation and the application of this remedy did not constitute an effective mechanism to provide a response to a report of a potential forced disappearance. The fact that the law regulating the amparo proceeding has been amended subsequent to the case is relevant for purposes of recommendations relating to non-repetition, to the extent that this issue would be cured in the future, but for purposes of determining international responsibility in the case before us, it does not relieve the state of its responsibility but rather confirms it. 65. Additionally, the Commission notes another factor that has obstructed diligent pursuit of the investigation, which has to do with the different ways in which the facts have been classified as crimes in the context of the different investigations that were opened. Thus, although the original reports clearly showed information to suggest that the case may involve forced disappearance, the acts were classified in different investigations as “criminal acts” and “illegal deprivation of liberty.” On this score, while it is incumbent upon domestic authorities to establish which crimes are applicable within the scope of their purview, it can happen that inadequate domestic classification becomes a factor of impunity, either because these classifications do not reflect the seriousness of the conduct or because they impede a thorough investigation of all matters constituting serious human rights violations. That is why several international instruments on serious human rights violations such as torture and forced disappearance require the States Parties to provide a suitable legal definition of these criminal offenses under their domestic law. This means that, when the facts exist to consider what occurred as an act of forced disappearance, the respective investigations must be opened under this statutory classification of criminal offense since, otherwise, essential elements of this serious human rights violation, such as concealment or refusal to provide information, would go uninvestigated.152 The Commission considers the failure to identify the reported facts, from the outset of the investigation, as possible forced disappearance, to have had an impact on the way the investigation unfolded, affecting the diligence and immediacy required in these cases. 66. All of the foregoing elements, taken as a whole, lead to the conclusion that the State has not investigated the facts of the instant case with due diligence, in violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument and breached its obligation as set forth in Article I b) of the ICFDP, to the detriment of Antonio González Méndez, his wife Sonia López Juarez and their children Ana González López, Magdalena González López, Gerardo González López and Elma Talía González López. C. Right to personal integrity with respect to the family IACHR. Report No. 2/06. Merits. Miguel Orlando Muñoz. Mexico. February 28, 2006, pars. 69-70; IA Court of HR. Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, pars. 259, 319 152 IACHR. Report No. 3/16. Merits. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera et al. Mexico. April 13, 2016, pars. 266-268. 151 21