Juárez, by a group of between 8 and 10 people carrying long weapons and wearing uniforms identified as military. 215. Specifically concerning the deprivation of liberty of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, there is the eye witness account of Obdulia Espinoza Beltrán, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera’s wife, who watched the deprivation of liberty from a window of her house. Moreover, María de Jesús Alvarado, who went to that spot after the detention, noted that the vehicle from which, according to Mrs. Espinoza Beltrán, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza had been removed was effectively there, without keys or stereo and with blood on the floor. Therefore, María de Jesús Alvarado’s testimony confirms various parts of Obdulia Espinoza Beltrán’s eye witness account. 216. For its part, as concerns Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes deprivation of liberty, which took place after that of her two relatives, the Commission notes the existence of three eye witness accounts: those of Patricia Reyes and of R.A.A.R and A.A.R, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes ’s mother and siblings, respectively. The three agreed that several armed men dressed in military uniforms forcibly broke into the house and went off with Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes. 217. The Commission observes that, between December 30, 2009, and January 1, 2010, the family filed reports and requests for information from various State entities, maintaining consistency in their descriptions regarding the circumstances surrounding the deprivation of liberty of their family members. 218. The Commission considers that these statements and their consistency at the time the respective reports were filed, together with the absence of information about the fate or the whereabouts of the three missing persons as of today and the absence of a hypothesis other than that of deprivation of liberty on December 29, 2009, are factors that, as a whole, make it possible to conclude that the first requirement has been met. 219. It bears mentioning that the Mexican State did not challenge the information on the deprivation of liberty per se but rather primarily put forward other possible hypotheses on who was responsible, a matter pertaining to the analysis that follows in connection with the second element. 2. Direct involvement or acquiescence of State agents 220. Regarding the direct involvement or acquiescence of State agents, the Commission observes that the victims were removed from their homes by army personnel. Similarly, according to the case file, two hypotheses were considered regarding who bore responsibility for the deprivation of liberty: (a) that the forced disappearance was committed by army personnel; and (b) that the victims’ detention and disappearance was the work of organized crime members. 221. The Commission notes that various pieces of available evidence point to the direct involvement of State agents. 222. First of all, regarding the context in which José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes disappeared; the Commission observes that there was a strong presence of army personnel in the geographic area where the events occurred, because of the Joint Chihuahua Operation. Also, as described in the section on context, information exists on reports of serious human rights violations, including forced disappearances, committed in the context of said operation. The Commission underscores that the case file includes a series of complaints against the 35th Battalion for its involvement in various crimes such as arbitrary detentions, torture, and extrajudicial executions.272 More specifically, there is a witness statement by one of the victims’ relatives indicating that a few days before the events he saw army 272 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXI. Witness statement given by Joel Sotelo Vázquez to the Federal Public Ministry on June 14, 2013, page 617 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014).