their personal integrity, personal liberty, and life.5 Likewise, the Court has partially accepted the requests for extension submitted by the Commission, calling on the State to adopt the measures that are needed to protect the life and integrity of 36 members of the Alvarado family and one of its representatives, Emilia González Tercero.6 10. In June 2013, the IACHR notified the parties that the information appearing in the case files for the precautionary measures and the provisional measures in connection with the present case would also be taken into account when reviewing the case being disputed. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 11. To provide a context to the incidents, the petitioners indicated that, for two decades in the State of Chihuahua, there have been forced disappearances on a continuous basis, with that State recording the highest incidence. They pointed out that this situation became even worse as of March 2008, with the implementation, in the State of Chihuahua, of the Joint Operation Chihuahua, aimed at dismantling the networks and logistics of organized crime, but in practice it entailed the violation of various human rights of the inhabitants by the army and the police force, such as forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions. 12. They indicated that, in that context, on December 29, 2009, in the Ejido Benito Juárez in the Municipality of Buenaventura in the State of Chihuahua, a group of between eight and ten soldiers illegally detained Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera when they were inside a motor vehicle parked outside the house of a relative; and afterwards they proceeded to arrest Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes when she was in her mother's home. They indicated that, to date, there is no knowledge of the whereabouts of any of these three members of the family. 13. The petitioners indicated that there are enough clues to contend that the incidents tend to establish a forced disappearance perpetrated by state agents which has not been investigated effectively or with due diligence. Specifically, they mentioned the context of heavy presence of the military in the area and the human rights violations committed by them. Moreover, they indicated that there are several witnesses of the detention as well as of information given by State agents regarding the fact that the three persons disappeared were under custody of the 35 Battalion. Additionally, they mentioned that different State entities, including the National Commission of Human Rights (CNDH), have stated the participation of the Military in the facts. They asserted that, although the next of kin have used all remedies to report the forced disappearance, the State not only has not carried out any search and investigation actions but also, on the contrary, the reports filed have led to life threats, harassment, and aggression against the next of kin of the alleged victims, situation that have caused the displacement of an important group of relatives. 14. The details about the facts and process of the investigation in connection with the forced disappearance of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes shall be referred to in the Commission's review of the facts on the basis of information provided by both parties. This section provides a summary of the principal arguments of law outlined by the petitioners. 15. They alleged that the State violated the right to recognition of juridical personality, because the deprivation of liberty leads to the impossibility of exercising any right or having access to legal safeguards and procedural guarantees to call for enforcement of the rights that are being undermined. 5 Decisions of the Inter-American Court in the Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. regarding Mexico, May 26, 2010, November 26, 2010, April 1, 2011, May 15, 2011, and November 23, 2012. 6 Decision in the Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. regarding Mexico. November 23, 2012, Second resolves clause.