12 Court also notes that in its Order of May 26, 2010 the State was ordered to adopt all measures necessary to ascertain the whereabouts of the beneficiaries and, immediately thereafter, to protect their lives, personal freedom, and right to humane treatment. 19. In this regard, the Tribunal takes note of the State’s efforts to search for the beneficiaries throughout its national territory as well as to obtain the collaboration and information of its many federal agencies (supra Considering 9). Likewise, the Court observes that in the State’s last brief it indicated that the beneficiaries had been included in the National Registry of Missing Persons (supra Considering 9). It acknowledges the formal efforts on the part of FEVIMTRA and the PGJE, as well as the two open investigations in the Military Prosecutor’s Office (supra Considering 7-9). However, the Court finds that 11 months from the date of the alleged forced disappearance of the beneficiaries, the actions on the part of the State authorities have not resulted in concrete results or positive advances capable of enabling a determination as to the whereabouts or present situation in which Rocío Irene, Nitza Paola, and José Ángel Alvarado find themselves. 20. The Court finds it necessary to stress that when there are reasonable motives to suspect that a person has been forcibly disappeared, swift and immediate action on the part of prosecutorial and judicial authorities is necessary. This may be achieved by ordering necessary and appropriate measures aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts of the victim or the location of the place in which he or she may be deprived of their liberty.19 In this regard, the Court notes the representatives’ observations in that the State’s treatment of the present matter is more befitting a missing persons case rather than one involving an alleged forced disappearance (supra Considering 13); this could result in limitations on the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the State to discover the beneficiaries’ whereabouts. Thus, the Court deems it necessary for Mexico to address these observations in a detailed and thorough manner in its next brief. 21. The Tribunal emphasizes that the present provisional measures seek to protect the life, liberty, and right to humane treatment of the beneficiaries who are allegedly the victims of a forced disappearance. In this regard, it recalls that pursuant to Article II of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, of which Mexico is a signatory, “forced disappearance” is defined as: the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. 22. Thus, the Court urges the State to take into account the characteristic elements of this alleged violation when it adopts measures to determine the beneficiaries’ whereabouts. In particular, the Court observes that from the information submitted by the State, the denial of knowledge about this matter on the part of those who have been singled out by the family members as the parties allegedly responsible for the beneficiaries’ disappearance is evident (supra Considering 9). This is so despite the lack of any presentation of detailed and complete information on other members the 19 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 221; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See also: Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, Considering clause thirteen.