18 Rocío” and who were attacked the day of her disappearance; as well as her grandfather, Manuel Reyes, who participated in the investigation from the Benito Juárez authorities, for which he feared reprisals. It was further added that all these proposed beneficiaries lived in the same residence. b) The family members of the beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Herrera for whom protective measures were sought are: his wife, Obdulia Espinoza Beltrán; his children, Johana Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Espinoza, and Angélica Alvarado Espinoza; his father, José Ángel Alvarado Favela; his mother, Concepción Herrera Hernández; his siblings, Jaime Alvarado Herrera, Manuel Melquíades Alvarado Herrera, and Rosa Olivia Alvarado Herrera; his niece, Karina Paola Alvarado Alvarado and his nephew, Fabián Alvarado Herrera; as well as his brother-in-law, Feliz García. It was further added that all these proposed beneficiaries lived in the same residence where on May 4, 2010 “federal police showed up [...] to intimidate them” (supra Considering 37(a)). Additionally, regarding Obdulia Espinoza, it was noted that she had been a witness to her husband’s disappearance, and on May 18, 2010 she received telephone calls “to which she did not wish to respond out of fear.” Regarding his siblings Jaime, Manuel Melquíades, and Rosa Olivia Alvarado Herrera, the Commission added that they had all been present in meetings with the authorities. c) The family members of the beneficiary Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza for whom protective measures were sought are: her daughters, Mitzi Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Nitza Citlali Alvarado Espinoza, and Daisy Alvarado Espinoza, who “ha[d] been displaced to different cities,” because their family members feared that something would happen to them due to their relation to the beneficiary; her parents, María de Jesús Espinoza Peinado and Ascensión Alvarado Favela, who they also considered to be at risk due to their kinship; her sister, María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza and her brother-in-law Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo, who had participated in the meetings with the State, and being that María de Jesús was also the person who filed the complaint over her sister’s disappearance. All of Nitza Paola’s family members occupy the same residence. 39. In its observations on the Commission’s request (supra Having Seen 7), the State argued that “from the facts laid out by the [...] Inter-American Commission, nowhere does it say that there has been any attempt [to attack] the family members of the beneficiaries [such that] their fundamental rights would be placed at risk.” Furthermore, the State added that the facts denounced after April 2010 (supra Considering 37) “do not denote any relation with the search procedures [in place] for [the present beneficiaries],” and that because of this there is no direct relationship with the subject matter of the present provisional measures. Additionally, the State indicated that SEDENA, the PGR, and the CONAVIM had reported “no knowledge regarding the facts forming the subject matter of the request.”35 However, the State reported the PGR’s indication that, owing to its investigative function, “ministerial personnel in charge of the investigations [...] ha[d] had contact with the family members of the victims, [...] always in strict observance of the rights of the victims [as] contained in the federal constitution.” Likewise, in November 2010, the SEDNA reported that the Military Prosecutor’s Office had visited the residence of Rocío Irene 35 On that occasion, the State exclaimed that it had requested information “from the different authorities related to the present matter” and that only those indicated above made any statement. From the attachments submitted by the State, together with its brief of observations on the Commission’s request to expand provisional measures (supra Having Seen 7), it is evident that the Ministry of Governance requested “all the information that they consider[ed] appropriate” regarding the aforementioned request to expand, as well as from all the other authorities listed above: the Chihuahua Womens’ Institute, the Chihuahua Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of Public Safety, the Secretary-General of Chihuahua, and the Ministry of Public Safety of Chihuahua (Attachment 1 from the State’s brief of September 24, 2010).