unmarked cars and according to some of the inhabitants of said municipality, the soldiers started to kidnap and torture persons as a method of investigation to obtain information and would then let them go.29 59. According to various national and international organizations, when implementing this operation, the authorities committed severe human rights violations.30 Regarding this, according to public information from the CNDH, in the year 2008 Chihuahua ranked first in terms of complaints filed for human rights violations perpetrated by army troops, with a total of 199 complaints. According to this information, in the framework of the Joint Operation Chihuahua, persons would be forced out of their homes and transferred to military facilities without immediately presenting them to an authority having jurisdiction. Some of the violations reported in Chihuahua included "torture, arbitrary detention, illegal search of homes, illegal seizures, cruel or degrading treatment, theft, illegal detention, threats, forced disappearance, intimidation, damage to property and violations of the right to liberty and juridical security.”31 In January 2009, CNDH reported that it had received 22 complaints for forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions (between March 2008 and December 2009).32 Some international organizations have also reported that the Joint Operation Chihuahua especially affected women, leading to a 400% rise in the disappearance of women since said operation started to be implemented.33 B. About Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes , and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and their next of kin 60. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza was born on November 2, 1978. At the time of the incidents, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza was 31 years old34 and had a motor disability in her right hand and leg, as a result of a stroke, because of which she received a pension from the Mexican Social Security Administration (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social).35 According to the petitioners, the next of kin of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza are: i) her mother María de Jesús Espinoza Peinado; ii) her father Ascensión Alvarado Fabela; iii) her three daughters N.S.A.E, M.P.A.E, and D.A.E; iv) her sister María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza; iv) her brother-in-law Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo; and v) her four nephews R.A.A, I.A.A.A, J.E.A.A, and A.Y.A.A.36 61. Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes was born on January 1, 1991. At the time of the incidents, she was 18 years old37 and worked in a grocery store.38 According to the petitioners, the next of kin of Rocío Irene 29 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Information provided by the petitioners in the framework of precautionary measure 55-10 with the IACHR, page 262 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 30 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Information provided by the petitioners in the framework of precautionary measure 55-10 with the IACHR, page 261 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 31 Newspaper article published in Diario La Jornada, “Chihuahua, primer lugar en abusos militares: CNDH, July 16, 2008. 32 Annex XX. Narrative provided by the petitioners in the petition filed with the Inter-American Commission on June 26, 2011. Newspaper article publish in <eluniversal.com> Denuncian creciente desaparición de muchachas en la mexicana Ciudad Juárez, August 24, 2010. 33 34 Annex XX. Narrative provided in the brief of the petitioners of observations on the merits of the case received on February 18, 2014. The State did not challenge this information. 35 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Disability Report from the Mexican Social Security Administration, page 209 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014). 36 Annex XX. Brief by the petitioners sent as part of the admissibility proceedings on December 24, 2012. The State did not challenge this information. 37 Annex XX. Narrative provided by the petitioners in the brief of observations on the merits of the case received on February 18, 2014. The State did not challenge this information. 38 Annex I. Case file. Volume XVII. Official letter from FEVIMTRA to the Director General of International Cooperation, page 870 of the pdf file (Annex to the brief of observations on the merits by the petitioners, received on November 3, 2014).