16. They pointed out that the State violated the right to life, taking into account four elements: a) there is considerable suspicion indicating that Infantry Colonel José Elfego Luján Ruiz is responsible for the forced disappearance of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera; b) various media charge this person with perpetrating various extrajudicial executions; c) the detention of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes , and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera was conducted with excessive use of force; and d) four years have elapsed since the detention without any clues about whether or not the disappeared persons have survived. 17. The petitioners argued that the State violated the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] because, in the arrest of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, verbal, physical, and psychological violence was used to subdue them. They indicated that said violation has been upheld during the alleged victims' prolonged solitary confinement and has forced them to remain incommunicado, which constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment. 18. The petitioners claim that the right to personal liberty was violated because it is not possible to think of the forced disappearance of a person without the necessary appearance of a breach of said right. 19. They alleged the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection because of the absence of an investigation of the facts with due diligence. They added that the criminal investigation was divided into various investigation files, which were opened in various agencies and for diverse crimes. They pointed out that they were made aware of at least eight case files that were opened on various dates and that these proceedings did not provide the safeguards of due process of law because, to date, no substantial progress has been made in identifying those responsible or in locating the alleged victims. Likewise, they argued that they filed an appeal on constitutional grounds (amparo) but, because this appeal requires ratification by the victims, it cannot be effective in the case of forced disappearances. 20. They stated that Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza made a phone call on February 3, 2010 to a friend asking for help. They added that, despite this, the call was not duly investigated. They indicated that the State justified its absence of thoroughness by pointing out that the call was for purposes of extortion although the facts do not indicate that it involved any ransom payment, which is an essential element for that crime. 21. They also alleged that the State failed to fulfill its duty to condemn forms of violence against women as set forth in Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention regarding Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes. According to the petitioners, their gender status placed them in a situation of vulnerability, which is all the more severe in the face of the armed forces in the context of widespread violence against women in the country. 22. The petitioners also contended that the Mexican State failed to observe Articles I.a, I.b, I.c, and IX of the IACFDP because there are enough elements to consider that Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera disappeared with the use of force by army troops and that the State had not undertaken any of the measures needed to conduct a thorough investigation. In addition, part of the criminal investigation was carried out in the jurisdiction of the military, where it remained from February 20, 2010 to December 29, 2011. 23. As for the next of kin of the disappeared persons, the petitioners alleged that the rights to humane treatment [personal integrity], a fair trial [judicial guarantees], and judicial protection, in connection with the right to the truth, were violated. They specified that these violations are based on the threats, harassment, and other acts of violence perpetrated against them. They also indicated the absence of judicial protection with respect to these actions, which have remained unpunished. They highlighted the suffering entailed as a result of the displacement of some of the next of kin from the place where they lived for security reasons. Additionally, they mentioned that both the disappearances as wells as the subsequent events, resulted in the fragmentation of the family and have caused a deep impact in each of its members.