124. Likewise, the representative of SEDENA was requested to inform if any operation had been carried out on December 29, 2009 in the Municipality of Buenaventura, in Chihuahua or in any nearby ejido and, if for that reason, it had detained Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and his answer was no.139 125. In the framework of the preliminary inquiry, the phone call received by Mrs. Juana Bustamante on February 3, 2010, allegedly from Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, was also investigated and the companies to which the numbers 016363980101 and 5542773909 belong, as well as the digital location of the geographical positioning or physical location of the phone in real time, were identified.140 In its report of December 7, 2011, the State concluded that "it involved a phone call linked to actions of extortion.”141 Regarding this, as indicated in the case file, the phone call had been made from an address close to the Santa Martha Acatitla Federal Penitentiary Center.142 In addition, the number from which the call was received had been used in a previous extortion attempt and was involved in another preliminary inquiry.143 126. On April 27, 2010, information was requested from the PGJE about another possible investigation in which Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera appeared as persons imputed, victims, offended; as well as what was told by the staff who had been working in their agencies on December 29 and 30, 2010 and who were the ones that received the complaints filed by the next of kin of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera144. 127. According to the report forwarded by the State on July 26, 2010, the place where Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera were allegedly deprived of their liberty and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes 's home were inspected, as well as various statements taken from next of kin and state agents involved in the investigations.145 128. Information was also requested from the Chair of the Banking and Securities Commission on August 3, 2010 about whether or not the alleged victims might have had bank accounts in the national banking system.146 On February 11, 2011, information was received from the National Banking and Securities 139 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Request for information addressed to the representative of SEDENA, March 10, 2010, page 30 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014); Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on May 21, 2010. 140 Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on December 7, 2011; in the case file it turns out that the ministerial federal police officers reached said conclusion because of the geographical location of the person who made the phone call. Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Report of the ministerial federal police officers, June 28, 2010, page 878 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 141 Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on December 7, 2011. Annex I. Case file. Volume XVIIII. Report by FEVIMTRA addressed to the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, January 10, 2011, page 302 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 142 143 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVIIII. Report by FEVIMTRA addressed to the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, January 10, 2011, page 306 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 144 Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on May 21, 2010; Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Request for information addressed to the Attorney General's Office of the State of Chihuahua, April 27, 2010, page 452 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 145 Annex XX. Brief of the State sent as part of the MP 10-10 proceedings with the I/A Court H.R. on July 26, 2010. Among these witness statements, the statement made by the Official of the Public Ministry of Regular Jurisdiction, Aarón Duarte, is noteworthy; he stated that on the day he took the complaint about the disappearance of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and two other persons, the next of kin mentioned that the subjects or persons were dressed as military, as a result of which he them that, if the soldiers were the ones who had taken them, they could go look for them or ask for information in the 35th Battalion in Nuevo Casas Grandes but that he didn’t assured that they were being held there. Annex I. Case file. Volume XVIII. Statement of testimony made by Aarón Enríquez Duarte to FEVIMTRA on October 25, 2010, page 154 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 146Annex I. Case file. Volume XVIII. Official letter addressed to the Chair of the National Banks and Securities Commission, August 3, 2010, page 9 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014).