11 assertion [that it] was already in possession of the geographical location of the call, it did not present any information regarding immediate monitoring efforts for this information, nor any efforts aimed at verifying the presence of the beneficiary in that place.” The Commission noted its serious concern that “months continue to pass by and the State [...] has not advanced serious investigations into [that] call,” and it considered it “unacceptable” that Mexico had submitted “the same information” concerning this point in its last two briefs. 17. Regarding the actions undertaken by the State, the Inter-American Commission observed that Mexico has only remarked that it was carrying out “several procedures” and that “soon it [would] submit the corresponding information” in relation to the investigation into the participation of military officials in the beneficiaries’ disappearance. Also, regarding the steps undertaken by FEVIMTRA about which the State provided some information (supra Considering 7(a)), the Commission noted that the State “has not made reference to the specific dates when they were conducted nor the results obtained from them.” In this regard, the Commission concurred with the representatives in that the lack of information on these dates impeded “an understanding of the consequential theme of the investigations as well as [a verification] as to whether these were updated procedures.” The Commission further concurred with the representatives in that “some of the actions [taken] [...] d[id not] appear to be related to the search for the beneficiaries pursuant to indications of military participation,” and Mexico provided no information as to which investigatory avenue this was aimed at addressing. Likewise, regarding the PGJE’s actions which were also featured in the State’s brief (supra Considering 8), the Commission noted that in the copy of the file from this institution furnished by the State “[there is a record] of actions only up until March 16, 2010.” Regarding the search for the beneficiaries in the country’s various official agencies (supra Considering 9), the Commission observed that in the State’s last brief it was unclear whether the actions indicated therein were new ones “or whether they concern[ed] previously sent letters.” The Commission stressed that the aforementioned letters “did not provide any relevant information concerning the beneficiaries’ whereabouts,” for which reason the State was obligated to engage complete and coordinated efforts among its various branches and authorities to immediately ascertain them. Conversely, the Commission positively assessed the beneficiaries’ entrance into the National Registry of Missing Persons and indicated that it hoped the State would continue to “keep a close eye on” this initiative and that it provide information on its results. The Commission observed that the State had reported that the collaboration of the Military Prosecutor’s Office to perform tasks in the 35th Infantry Battalion. The Commission regarded such steps as essential but also noted that the State was to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that these efforts were conducted by authorities who could offer prima facie guarantees of impartiality and independence in order to effectively contribute to the search for the beneficiaries. To do otherwise “c[ould] have negative effects” in obtaining information on their whereabouts. Finally, the Commission noted from the State’s briefs that “it turn[ed] out that the provisional measures ha[d] not achieved adequate compliance” and that the State’s actions to date “[were] not appropriate to the nature of the situation denounced, nor to the necessity of adopting immediate and effective measures to clarify the events and determine the beneficiaries’ whereabouts.” The Commission stressed that in cases such as the present one, “the passage of time without adopting serious investigative search measures augments the extreme risk in which the beneficiaries may find themselves.” 18. The Court deems it appropriate to recall that the present provisional measures were adopted in light of the fact that Rocío Irene, Nitza Paola, and José Ángel Alvarado, who are all cousins, have been missing since the night of December 29, 2009 when they were allegedly deprived of their liberty in an illegal manner by State agents.18 The 18 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 8, Considering clause eight.