carry out the necessary evidentiary procedures to seek and obtain fingerprints in the anonymous document.” In no case were fingerprints found as a result of this expert assessment; and h) regarding the events of February 25, 2010 (supra Having Seen para. 2(k)), the State learned of these on March 1, 2010, and on this same date, FEPOANGDHH requested “the adoption, without delay, of precautionary measures” in favor of the petitioners. Events that took place after the adoption of the precautionary measures i) regarding the events of November 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen para. 4(a)), FEPOANGDHH opened ex oficio an administrative record No. AA 005/FEPONGDHM1/2010. On November 25, 2010, FEPAONGDDH drafted official letter No. FEPONGDDH-M2/148/2010 to the Commissioner, at the Secretariat for Citizen Security and Protection, requesting that the precautionary measures be tightened. That same day, the aforementioned administrative record was given the rank of preliminary investigation, under file No. AP0004/FEPONGDDH-M1/2010, in respect of which more than 79 procedures were carried out. Finally, it noted that, at the time when the observations were presented, Mrs. Martínez Martínez and members of the Center Fray Bartolomé de las Casas had not appeared to render their ministerial statements regarding the matter, despite having received legal notice; j) regarding the alleged events of February and March 2011, and August 19, September 29, and October 3, 2011 (supra Having Seen paras. 4(e), 4(g), and 4(h)), according to the “incident book” no incident [occurred] that would have jeopardized the integrity of the beneficiaries of the measures;” k) regarding the alleged events of October 20, 2011 (supra Having Seen para. 4(k), on that date FEPAONGDDH became aware of the facts and initiated the Administrative Record AA 0010/FEPONGDDH-M1/2011, in which it ordered various procedures to investigate the matter of the note sent to the petitioners, for which the alleged victims were interviewed, but refused to cooperate with the investigations required in order to open a preliminary investigation. In this respect, it noted that the investigations have begun, but that Mrs. Martínez’ assistance is required to obtain more evidentiary elements that may help clarify the facts under investigation. In that regard, she has been asked to appear before this social organization, but has ignored this request and has shown a lack of legal interest, and therefore the matter would be characterized under the hypothesis of Article 37 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Chiapas, and l) that in response to the specific question asked of the petitioners regarding “whether they had received threats after October 20 of this year, [their] answer was no.” 8. Furthermore, in its brief the State referred to the implementation of the protection measures granted to Mrs. Martínez Martínez and her family, prior to the Commission’s request for provisional measures for these persons. FEPAONGDDH ordered several measures for the protection of the petitioners, and among them, “it decided to grant [the petitioners], for humanitarian assistance [,] the monthly sum of $20,000 [(twenty thousand Mexican pesos)]. Similarly, $63,000.00 [(sixty-three thousand Mexican pesos)] was granted “as reparation for damage.” Another measure granted “consisted of providing ten security packages with digital cameras with night vision, including their installation and 7