5 elements [pointing to a] federal question.” Regarding the steps taken in the aforementioned cases open before the PGR, Mexico noted that: a) Concerning the prior investigation begun in FEVIMTRA, several steps have been taken, among which it highlighted the carrying out of: an inspection in the place where two of the beneficiaries were allegedly detained; an inspection of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes’s domicile; an inspection by the State Agency for Investigations in Chihuahua into the location where the vehicle manned by Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera was at one point located; the testimonies of two police officers assigned to the State Agency for Investigations as well as of Obdulia Espinoza Beltrán, wife of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera; an agent of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office assigned to the PGR regional delegation in Ciudad Juarez; and another official assigned to the PGR regional delegation in Ciudad Juarez. Later, in its October 5, 2010 report (supra Having Seen 2) the State added, inter alia, that it turned to the National Banking and Securities Commission to obtain information in the National Banking System on accounts in the beneficiaries’ name. The State also requested a copy of the affidavit prepared by the Deputy Delegate for Criminal Proceedings “A” of the Chihuahua state delegation on the beneficiaries’ disappearance and solicited the collaboration of the “Attorney General [and of the] Minister of Public Safety, both from the [s]tate of Chihuahua” to subpoena a witness as well as the head of the Emergency and Immediate Response Center in order to obtain copies of the recordings from surveillance cameras in the municipalities of Buenaventura and Nuevo Casas Grandes from December 29 and 30, 2009. The State indicated the presence of the report of the Ministerial Police which stated that its members had gone to the cooperative of Benito Juarez, Municipality of Buenaventura, Chihuahua, “where they interviewed several people[,] inquired into operations of the Mexican military, and located zones of military activity near the scene of the events.” Furthermore, it requested copies of the case file opened by the National Human Rights Commission and sent a letter to the Military Prosecutor “so that in a spirit of cooperation” various tasks might be performed relating to the 35th Infantry Battalion, as well as to obtain a copy of the preliminary investigation corresponding to the facts in the present case. Also, regarding the telephone call allegedly placed by Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza on February 3, 2010 asking for help8, the State indicated in its briefs of August 3 and October 5, 2010 that, in its investigation before FEVIMTRA, the public prosecutor could determine the exact telephone from which the call was allegedly made - as “it [was] apparent from the investigation, the geographic location from which the call was made” - but the service provider had reported that “the number at issue was a prepaid one, and therefore it [was] not possible to determine to whom it belong[ed].” In this regard, the State noted that the aforementioned Social Representation of the Federation “[would] continue to study the data provided by the telecommunication companies, as well as the analysis of phone traffic and activity on certain numbers, from which it [would then] draw investigative conclusions.” b) Regarding the affidavit prepared before the Investigatory Agency of Nuevo Casas Grandes, “several steps ha[d] been taken,”9 but “until this investigation 8 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Having Seen clauses 3(b)(vi), 7(i), 7(ii). 9 In its June 3, 2010 brief, the State submitted “an update on the steps taken” by this office. In addition to the ministerial actions previously reported to the Tribunal before the Order of May 26, 2010 in the present matter, the State reported, inter alia, that certified copies of the investigation begun on December 31, 2009 had been requested and received. Further, requests for information from the National Human Rights Commission had been responded to and reports or letters were received from the PGJE, the Federal