6 in the investigations and in the implementation of the measures, which was alleged by the State (supra having seen paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c)), inter alia, the following: a) The beneficiaries had formally and exhaustively provided all the information they had concerning the facts of the forced disappearance of their next of kin, which constituted information that was already in the files in the hands of the State.2 The representatives underscored that the photographs of the beneficiaries who had allegedly disappeared had been handed over to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Violence against Women and People-Trafficking (FEVIMTRA) approximately one year previously: b) “[It is inexplicable that the next of kin who are in hiding and in grave danger owing to death threats are summoned to appear to provide information that has been in the hands of the authorities for months and that appears in the case files.” This demonstrates “carelessness and lack of interest in the investigation”; c) At the meeting of March 4, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 10(c)), the next of kin of the beneficiaries who had allegedly disappeared “wept with frustration and the feeling that they had been deceived,” because they had risked their life by coming out of the place where they were hiding to attend the said meeting in the hope of receiving information on the whereabouts of their next of kin or on progress in the investigations. Given the absence of results in the investigations and the attitude of the state authorities who responded to their questions by “intimidating, mistreating and blaming the next of kin […] for their lack of cooperation,” they decided to leave the Prosecutor’s Office, and d) The lack of coordination among the state institutions that hinders or prevents them from having mutual access to the statements made by the next of kin cannot be used as justification to re-victimize and blame the beneficiaries. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. In this regard, Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes: 1. At any stage of proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 2 The representatives explained that the beneficiaries have filed complaints and provided relevant information to the Attorney General’s Office of the state of Chihuahua (PGJE), the office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR), the State Human Rights Commission in Ciudad Juárez, and the Program to Attend Complaints of the Chihuahua Joint Operation in Ciudad Juárez. They also filed an application for amparo and, on the “only occasion that new facts arose,” the said next of kin went to the PGR and the PGJE to expand their statements and to inform the authorities about the new events related to the telephone call made by the beneficiary Nitza Paola on February 3, 2010.