8 despite the State’s contention in the minutes of that meeting that “it [would] carry out a high-level meeting” to address this issue, to date Mexico has not reported on its results, and the military prosecutor continued to investigate the case. The representatives added that SEDENA opened two preliminary inquiries into this case and “has refused to transfer these investigations to the civil sphere” in contravention of international standards on the issue. They also noted that the State has not provided copies of these files to the Military Prosecutor’s Office and expressed their view that if any investigation continued to be the province of military jurisdiction or if civil authorities requested the military’s intervention in solving the matter, it “c[ould] seriously hinder any inquiries that may be undertaken.” The representatives reported that on May 19, 2010, the second meeting was held and that in it “the State failed to respond to requests for investigations and protection,” and State officials “abandoned the meeting without any warning,”15 which in the representatives’ opinion evinced “a total lack of will and interest in this serious case of disappearance.” They added that since the last meeting, the State “has not communicated with the petitioners to inform them [regarding] the investigative measures [or] the protection requested,” and that the representatives also have not been summoned by any civil court since that date. The representatives were insistent in their contention that since the granting of provisional measures, no meeting has been held relating to their fulfillment and that the information the State submitted to the Court is not updated. For this reason, the representatives are unaware whether the State has taken any steps in fulfillment of these measures. In their November 22, 2010 observations, the representatives noted with “great concern” that the State “continues to provide information already offered in other [previous] briefs.” 12. Regarding the actions and formalities about which the State provided information, the representatives observed in September 2010 that “more than 200 days [had] passed since the disappearance” of the Alvarados, which leads them to conclude that the State’s efforts “have not given the case the relevance it requires.” They noted that the PGR and the PGJE “have only gone so far as to submit affidavits which, in Mexican law, are [merely] a statement of facts [that] do not obligate investigation of a crime.” They stressed that FEVIMTRA is “the only civil instance with a preliminary inquiry” without it being clear “why the prosecutor [assigned to the special division] for the treatment of women would be investigating a case of forced disappearance and whether this prosecutor has the capabilities, power, and resources members and representatives of the victims to military barracks; provide copies of the preliminary investigations in the possession of the Military Prosecutor’s Office; provide information regarding the name and rank of the State’s designated person responsible for conducting the investigation into the forced disappearance; establish a working group in which every 15 days all case files and ongoing investigations are reviewed so that the representatives are made aware of what has been done; and provide information on the name of the Army general that confiscated the truck in which the beneficiaries Nitza and José Ángel Alvarado were traveling when they were allegedly detained arbitrarily on December 29, 2009. 15 In this regard, together with their brief of September 21, 2010 (supra Having Seen 3), the representatives submitted a copy of the May 19, 2010 affidavit filed by the representative of the Chihuahua State Commission on Human Rights who had attended the meeting. At that meeting, this government representative exclaimed that “we had moved to request from the heads of the [State] institutions [present] their timely response to questions asked during the meeting held last March 10th [2010] about issues raised that were not substantially resolved, and to address the security measures to protect the life and right to humane treatment of those involved. Because of the lack of viable proposals to solve this matter, it was agreed to end the discussion and proceed to a reading and signing of the memorandum; however, this did not happen because the heads of the aforementioned agencies left the room where the session was being held, with the exception of the SEDENA members who remained until the end” (Attachment 4 from the representatives’ September 21, 2010 brief). Together with their October 1, 2010 (supra Having Seen 3) brief, the representatives also submitted a copy of the informational note from the National Commission on Human Rights, who had also been present at the meeting and whose note (written at the representatives’ request) states that “at the close of the [meeting held on May 19, 2010] the representatives of the agencies that participated in this meeting left the property without explanation, leaving only the personnel from [the] SEDENA, the Chihuahua State Commission on Human Rights, the undersigned [representative of the National Commission on Human Rights], as well as the representatives and family members of the aggrieved” (Sole attachment to the representatives’ October 1, 2010 brief).