13 State may have adopted - within the framework of the Military Prosecutor’s respective inquiry - to determine the truth of these affirmations, with the exception of the inspection carried out in March 2010 by the National Human Rights Commission in one of the State security installations in the area.20 23. The Court also takes not of the representatives’ affirmations in that the entrance of FEVIMTRA personnel into military installations, the same persons in charge of the PGR investigation, was denied (supra Considering 12). At the same time, the Court observes that the State did not make any mention of this comment on the part of the representatives. Thus, the Tribunal reminds the parties that it is fundamental for authorities in charge of investigating a case of an alleged forced disappearance to have unlimited access to detention centers, both with regard to documents as well as persons.21 The latter is especially relevant in light of the fact that the goal of the present measures is precisely that State authorities determine the whereabouts of the beneficiaries so as to be able to protect their rights. 24. Conversely, the Tribunal notes that the State has continuously provided information to the Court ever since its first communication of May 21, 2010 and up until its last one dated October 5, 2010,22 that it knows the location from which Nitza Paola Alvarado allegedly placed a phone call on February 3, 2010. However, the State has not reported on any measure or action that it might have taken as a consequence of this information in order to locate the beneficiary pursuant to the Court’s specific direction in its Order of May 26, 2010. What’s more, the Tribunal finds that the information submitted by the State on this point does not vary at all from that which Mexico submitted prior to the adoption of the present provisional measures,23 for which no concrete or positive advances could be said to have been made. The Court thus requests that the State, in its next brief on provisional measures, indicate to the Court in a detailed and thorough manner the steps it may have taken in that regard. 25. Regarding the alleged lack of cooperation with the representatives and the family members in the investigation of the present matter (supra Considering 8, 1415), the Court recalls its repeated jurisprudence which states that in cases of extrajudicial executions, forced disapperances, torture, or any other serious human rights violations, the conduct of a serious, impartial, effective, and prompt investigation ex officio is a fundamental and conditioning element for the guarantee and protection of certain rights impacted by these situations, such as the rights to personal freedom, humane treatment, and one’s very life.24 In those cases, the State authorities must carry out that investigation as its own legal duty, beyond the procedural activities of the interested parties, through all available legal means, and geared towards 20 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 8, Considering clause eleven. 21 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 135. 22 In its May 21, 2010 brief, the State reported on the PGJE’s ongoing investigation that “the institution of the State Public Prosecutor’s Office [had] agree[d] to trace the call [...] and [had] obtain[ed] sufficient information to establish the origin and the geographical location from which the call was placed.” Later, in its August 3 and October 5, 2010 briefs, the State reported with respect to the open preliminary investigation before the FEVIMTRA that “the geographical location of the place from which the corresponding call was made [was] contain[ed] in the investigation.” 23 24 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 8, Having Seen clause 7(i). Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 117; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 19, paras. 65, 155.