24. They also alleged that the State violated the right to private and family life to the detriment of Jaime Alvarado Herrera, Sandra Luz Rueda Quezada, and their children Jaime Obett, Reyna Guadalupe, Cindy Nallely, and Joel Eduardo, all bearing the surname Alvarado Rueda, who as a result of their activities of filing reports and looking for their next of kin have sustained a series of aggressions and threats such as the illegal search of the home of the Alvarado Rueda family, where a death threat was left. They indicated that, according to witnesses, this threat had been made by Federal Police Officers who used patrol cars and uniforms belonging to that institution. They added that the Municipal Police Force was notified but it never showed up. They added that, although the criminal complaint for the illegal search and threats was filed with the General Prosecution Service of the State, after more than two years have elapsed, the testimonies of the neighbors who witnessed the illegal search were never taken and there has been no other concrete action taken or substantial progress made to identify those responsible, as a result of which they indicated that this incident continues to go unpunished 25. Finally, the petitioners alleged the violation of the rights of the child, because at the time of the arrest of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, the children A.A.R. and R.A.A.R., siblings of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes , as well as A.M.U.A., daughter of Rocío, were there at the place of her detention and who was, at that time, only two years old.7 In this matter, they stressed that the soldiers who broke into the home, violently ordered them to lock themselves in the bathroom and that one of them even remembers that they threatened to take them all. B. Position of the State 26. The State indicated that it is making institutional efforts to find the victims, punish those responsible, and secure the truth behind the incidents, stressing that the investigations in the case are especially complex. It indicated that, although in cases of forced disappearance, the investigations must follow a particular line, the investigation must be evaluated as a whole, considering that it involves an obligation to provide means rather than to produce results and that certain omissions in the case are not determining factors to establish the State's international responsibility. Based on the aforementioned, it requested the Commission to allow it to make progress in the investigation before reaching a decision on the merits of the case. 27. The State indicated that, although the facts of the case led to the start of various investigations, on April 4, 2013, as a result of the establishment of the Unit for the Search of Missing Persons, preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/SDHAVSC/M5/66/2013 was launched by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República, hereinafter the PGR), which brought together all of the court proceedings and actions, both local and federal, that had been taken since the first complaint was filed. 28. The State reported that, as part of said investigation, three lines of investigation have been established: a) probable participation of troops of the Mexican Army; b) participation of the Federal Police Force; and c) involvement of criminal groups in the Ejido Benito Juárez. It added that, nevertheless, it has not been possible to satisfactorily vouch for any line of investigation. It indicated that none of these lines of investigation can be dismissed, which means that as yet it cannot attribute any criminal responsibility nor can it conclude that state agents were the ones who carried out the disappearance. 29. The State indicated that, as part of the investigations conducted up until now dating back to the year 2010 and that were stepped up as of the year 2011, the PGR has to date taken various steps, among which can be highlighted the securing of 155 statements of testimony as evidence, including 94 statements from various authorities and 18 testimonies provided by next of kin, neighbors, co-workers, and friends of the victims. It also explained that 206 elements of documentary proof were gathered, including reports and logs in connection with the actions of personnel. In addition, 18 pieces of evidence by experts have been secured 7 When admissibility report 48-13 of July 12, 2013 was approved, the Commission decided that it would thereafter keep the names of the children appearing as victims in the case being examined confidential.