257. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that, by maintaining a legal framework that made it possible to apply military justice to the instant case, the State of Mexico violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, specifically the right to have recourse to competent, independent, and impartial authorities, pursuant to Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, as well as their next of kin as set out in paragraphs 59 to 61 of this report. In addition, the Commission considers that the State failed to comply with its obligations under Article IX of the IACFDP. 2. Diligence in the investigation 258. Firstly, the Commission notes that the remedy of amparo presented by José Angel Alvarado Favela on January 6, 2010, did not activated an immediate search of the three persons dissapeared given that, according to its regulation by that moment, such remedy was rejected due to the lack of ratification on the part of the same beneficiaries, that is, the disappeared persons. Therefore, that remedy did not constitute an effective mechanism to respond to a denounciation of a posible nforced disappearance. 259. The Commission observes first of all that several simultaneous investigations were opened in connection with the facts. Thus, the facts of the instant case were heard during a period of almost six years by at least five state entities charged with carrying out criminal investigations: the PGR, Chihuahua Delegation; the Attorney General's Office for Military Justice; the District Attorney's Office of the State of Chihuahua; the PGR, FEVIMTRA; and lastly the PGR for the aggregate case since 2013. 260. The foregoing shows that the State took more than three years to determine which entity, in accordance with the nature of the case, was competent to conduct the criminal investigation. This not only reveals a lack of coordination among the different entities but also suggests that a large part of the action taken by State authorities, at the most crucial stages of the investigation, had to do with decisions to decline jurisdiction, the joinder of cases, and other procedural matters rather than the search for the missing victims with all the immediacy and thoroughness that a case like this one warrants. 261. The Commission observes that the State has described in numerical terms the number of witness statements, documentary pieces of evidence, inspections, and expert reports, among other things, that have been compiled throughout the investigations. However, the Commission has not been able to understand from a comprehensive review thereof which specific lines of investigation have been followed, how the State authorities have determined those lines, or how those lines have been pursued with necessary diligence and have led to strategies genuinely linked to indications of the participation of State agents that appeared from the very outset of the investigations. 262. Thus, for example, although some concrete measures were taken in connection with the search, the Commission does not find they were linked to any serious lines of investigation or that they were consistent with indications of army participation in the act. In fact, according to the study of the available documentation, the Commission has not been able to identify which evidence led the State authorities to determine inspection sites, such as the one known as “Tiro de Mina,” or its possible relationship to the instant case. 263. On the contrary, when attempts were made to take measures directly related to the possible presence of the missing victims in the 35th Infantry Battalion, the military authorities have not collaborated in the collection of that evidence. FEVIMTRA itself makes reference to that situation. The Commission underscores that the line of investigation involving the 35th Infantry Battalion has been taken up recently in the framework of the aggregate investigation within the PGR, even though circumstantial evidence in that regard appeared early on in the investigation. Furthermore, as pointed out by the group of international experts, no line of investigation was effectively designed and implemented concerning a possible link between the facts and the investigations into what happened to a group of federal police officers. The Commission emphasizes that the statements of State officials that mentioned such a link were given from the very outset of the military criminal justice investigation.