3 j) On January 22, 2010, the State presented a report to the Commission stating that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic had received several complaints on the “alleged disappearance" of Mr. Almonte Herrera. It also indicated that it had contacted his family in order for them to submit a complaint to move the investigation forward, "but their cooperation was not obtained." The State did not make any reference to the fact that Mr. Almonte Herrera was in the custody of the National Police when he disappeared. The State also mentioned that it had launched an investigation in which it asked the Immigration Directorate for the registries of Mr. Almonte Herrera’s entrances to and exits from the country and asked for medical information "in order to make comparisons with the autopsies [of other cadavers] obtained on the dates of his alleged disappearance." Finally, the State reported on the measures taken toward safeguarding the lives and safety of the other beneficiaries. It communicated that, with the exception of Ms. Ana Josefa Montilla, who was in the United States, it had provided a police guard for the other beneficiaries; k) The petitioners reported that they are lobbying for the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic to bring criminal charges against the National Police officials and that they have received threats from the National Police "for if they file suit against them,” and; l) Finally, the petitioners reported having met “with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the National Police," which proposed assigning a police officer to each of the beneficiaries of the measures. Regarding this, they stated that they would present a counter-proposal, as they do not agree that the same institution that is in question should be the one that carries out the improvement, compliance with, and supervision of the measures to be granted. 3. The Commission’s arguments on which it based its request for provisional measures, to wit: a) the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency due to the facts that: i) Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera was detained on September 28, 2009, and since then his whereabouts have been unknown; ii) as a result of the filing of the habeas corpus writ, Mr. Juan Almonte’s effective detention by the police was proven; iii) the disappearance of Mr. Almonte Herrera while in the custody of the State, the existence of indications that State agents participated in covering up his whereabouts, and the absence of news about him demands that the Dominican Republic deploy special search efforts, establish what happened, and protect his life and personal integrity; iv) based on this, it is reasonable to infer that Mr. Almonte Herrera is facing a situation of grave risk; v) although his relatives and representatives filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which resulted in a ruling ordering Mr. Almonte Herrera be released, the State has not complied with that order and has also denied that he is in its custody; and vi) the State has expressed that "the relatives are the ones who should file a complaint on the facts." Yet in a case such as this one, the investigation should be launched ex officio; b) A situation of extreme gravity and urgency also arises with regard to the relatives of Mr. Almonte Herrera and his attorneys as: i) they have been subjected to threats, harassment, and following by State agents due to their public statements and actions taken before State authorities to learn of the whereabouts