59 194. The Commission and the representatives argued that the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco did not file a formal complaint of the facts when they occurred due to the social and political context existing at that time, when the next of kin of the victims did not file accusations due to the fear of retaliations or of being arrested by soldiers. The representatives stated that, despite the aforementioned, the next of kin publicly denounced his disappearance and they turned to several state authorities trying to obtain help in his search.201 In that sense, they indicated that the State was aware of his arrest and disappearance since the facts occurred. 195. On its part, the State indicated that “[…] popular demonstrations [… do not] constitute strictu sense an acknowledged form of noticia criminis”, reason for which it insisted that it was on March 27, 1992 when it formally knew of the facts through the filing of the first criminal accusation. Based on the aforementioned, the State mentioned that the facts were denounced 18 years after they occurred, and that “[s]aid fact [was] not attributable to the State.” 196. In this sense, the Tribunal verifies that during the public hearing the State indicated that “[t]he crime was not tended to in a timely manner in great measure because of the political context and institutional framework that […] existed at that time […].” In this sense, the consequences that result from the delay in the start of the investigations cannot be attributed in any way whatsoever to the victims or their next of kin. 197. As previously stated, any state authority or public official that has received news of acts destined to the forced disappearance of persons, shall denounce it immediately (supra para. 143). In cases of forced disappearances of persons, the formal complaint regarding the facts does not fall exclusively on the next of kin of the victims, especially when it is the government itself who hinders it. In the present case, it is clear that it was Mr. RadillaPacheco’s next of kin who initially, by their own means, carried out several actions tending to find him, despite the difficulties that characterized the existing political context. 198. On the other hand, from the facts of the case it can be concluded that on March 27, 1992, Mrs. Andrea Radilla Martínez, and on May 14, 1999 Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez, 201 Mrs. Andrea Radilla Martínez indicated in a statement offered on March 27, 1992 that: “[a]long with [her] husband and other family members they proceed[ed] to start the search [for Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco] in [the] city of Chilpancingo, Guerrero, reason for which they proceed[ed] to look for […] the person who at that time occupied the position of secretary of the Governor in office, […] based on a close family relationship [and he told them] he could do nothing for [them] and even less so for [her] father, since he was unable to act due to the fact they were dealing with military authorities […];” “[they later traveled] to the Port of Acapulco, Guerrero[, to] visit a relative, who was a member of the Mexican army, [whose] ranking was of private, […] in order to know if through some of his colleagues located at that Port [he] knew or had heard through others of the whereabouts of [her] father, without obtaining any positive response in this sense […] this visit to the Port was approximately eight days after the date of the arrest of [Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco];” “[a]pproximately fifteen days after they returned from Port of Acapulco [she] traveled along with a friend […] to the Military Zone of [the] city of Chilpancingo, to ask about [her] father’s whereabouts, since [her friend] had a friend who at that time was a soldier [… who] told [them] not to worry, because if [her] father was innocent, they would let him go[, even though] it was well known by all the people that lived in [that] city that the Army only arrested people who had connections with the guerrilla, [thus, she was not] very satisfied [with] the answer provided by that officer […];” “approximately one month later [they travelled] to [M]exico City to meet with the […] representatives of Governor Rubén Figueroa Figueroa […] since from a military doctor […] she know through rumors that [her] father was imprisoned in Military Field Number One in [M]exico City[, the doctor] had found out because a man […] sent his wife a letter which included a list of people who were detained among which he included the name of [Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco], reason for which this doctor told [them] to go directly to [M]exico City [… and that] they try that [her] father send [them] a message […] since without that document it was impossible for him to try to speed up his location […];” and, that “[they did not file] a formal complaint before the Attorney General of the State or before the Attorney General of the Republic for the disappearance of [Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco], limiting her actions only to demands to see him through the National Front Against Repression […] through manifestations, rallies, and sit-ins.” (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix D(21), folios 1909 through 1910).