7 [had] participated in the events described by the plaintiffs.”12 In its later brief of September 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 7), the State indicated that two investigations were open before the Military Prosecutor for events giving rise to the protective measures. Additionally, the State noted that in an effort to “publicize the beneficiaries’ disappearance throughout the country” and “in support of ministerial investigations[,] the [Ministry of Governance] took on the labor of reporting [this] to other federal departments and all federal entities, requesting that they make use of their respective powers to facilitate support in the search for the beneficiaries.”13 In this regard, the State indicated that even though the Ministry of Governance does not have investigatory powers, information had been sent to the Attorneys General of each federal entity so that they would “undertake the search for these persons, [...] within the sphere of their competencies.” Also, in October 2010 the State reported that the Federal Ministry for Public Safety had entered the beneficiaries into the National Registry of Missing Persons, which is published on the Ministry’s web site. Proof of this publication was provided to the Tribunal. 10. Finally, the State explained that more than one investigative file existed “[was] due to the fact that the Public Prosecutor, given his autonomy and independence, has the obligation to commence [a] preliminary inquiry or [to prepare a] detailed affidavit upon becoming aware [that a crime has been committed], thus, once the relevant steps have been taken, he [would] be capable of determining the proper legal recourse, whether [that were to be] ordering a consolidation of suits, lack of jurisdiction, or not pursuing a criminal action, excepting or including a period of detention.” 11. Regarding the steps taken by the State, the representatives indicated that “the agencies of the State of Mexico that ha[d] opened an investigation or [drafted] a detailed report on the Alvarado case ha[d] not undertaken efforts or search actions [but rather] limite[d] themselves to [merely] exchanging letters.” They insisted that the State has not submitted the beneficiaries’ case to the civilian authorities, nor has it provided any information as to their whereabouts or condition; it has not conducted so much as one operation to locate them; and has failed to investigate the members of the battalion that arbitrarily detained them on December 29, 2009. The representatives expressed their view that “[t]he State’s inaction for more than eight months has aggravated the risk to the right to humane treatment for [the beneficiaries], their family members, and their representatives.” In this regard, the representatives noted that since the award of precautionary measures on the part of the Inter-American Commission in March 2010, the State has only held two meetings with the petitioners. They noted that the first of these meetings was held on March 10, 2010 in which the petitioners requested that the State perform concrete investigatory actions in order to find the beneficiaries, among which they requested that the investigation into the disappearance take place civilly.14 They accordingly stressed that 12 In addition to his report from the Director of Human Rights at the SEDENA, the State submitted a letter from the Commander of the 35th Infantry Battalion where, in response to the request for information on the part of the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs and Human Rights in the Ministry of Governance, he indicated that the “Battalion command [did] not have the authority to respond to [that] request” and it was suggested “to direct the request to the Director of Human Rights [...] under the [SEDENA]” (Attachments from the State’s brief of June 9, 2010). 13 In its later brief of October 5, 2010, the State attached a chart stating that it had requested information from federal authorities in Aguascalientes, Baja California, South Baja California, Campeche, Chiapas, Coahuila, the Federal District, Colima, Durango, the State of Mexico, Guerrero, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Puebla, Querétaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatán, and Zacatecas. From this chart, it is apparent that all the various federal authorities from which the State requested information - with the exception of those corresponding to the State of Chihuahua - indicated that they did not have information on the beneficiaries or they were not aware of the facts underlying this case (Attachment 3 of the State’s brief of October 5, 2010). 14 The representatives explained that, among such measures, they requested that the State: guarantee that the investigation take place in the civil courts and not the military ones; refrain from summoning family