9 9. In the report of April 30, 2010 (supra Having Seen 15), the State indicated that it was “taking the necessary steps to determine [Mr.] Almonte Herrera’s location and punish those responsible for his disappearance, prior to the adoption of the Precautionary Measures by the Inter-American Commission.” However, the State expressed that Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera “is a fugitive of the law due to his alleged participation in the kidnapping of [Mr.] Eduardo A. Baldera Gómez.” Likewise, the State reported that “[w]ith regards to the security of [Yuverky Almonte Herrera, Joel Almonte, Genaro Rincón and Francisco de León Herrera], it set forth the posting of a security service for all of them,” except for Ms. Ana Josefa Montilla, who “is living in the United States,” although “the State is most willing to provide it to her, if she decides to come back.” 10. In the habeas corpus decision of the Second Criminal Court of the National District on October 2, 2009 (supra Having Seen 16), it declared “the illegality of [Mr. Almonte Herrera’s] imprisonment, as he [was in] prison without a court order issued by the competent judicial authority,” hence “the immediate release of [Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera] was ordered.” In this decision it was also declared that this order “ha[d] to become enforceable from the court, so that no government employee coul[d] deny complying with it.” 11. The Inter-American Commission observed that “the State did not provide specific information on the steps being taken to locate [Mr.] Juan Almonte Herrera, or on the investigations aimed at punishing those responsible for his disappearance.” Likewise, the Commission indicated its concern that “the State continue[s] with the main hypothesis that Mr. Almonte Herrera is running from the law, [without] providing information destined to investigate the concrete indications that he was subject to forced disappearance by State agents,” notwithstanding the habeas corpus decision ruled in his favor (supra Having Seen 16). In addition, the Commission reiterated that “the State’s response does not address the gravity and urgency of the situation, as it does not indicate having adopted concrete measures to investigate and establish [the] whereabouts [of Mr. Almonte Herrera], therefore it has not produced the immediate results that are necessary in situations such as this one.” Finally, the Inter-American Commission indicated that “it t[ook] cognizance of the information reported by the State with regards to the protection provided to the other beneficiaries, [but that] it reserv[ed] the right to expand on its observations once the beneficiaries submit[ted] their own.” 12. The representatives did not submit their observations to the Court. 13. After two extensions (supra Having Seen 12 and 14), the State reported in general on the “pertinent measures” taken to determine Mr. Almonte Herrera’s location and punish those responsible for his disappearance. The State did not detail these measures or report on the results or concrete advances that allow to clearly determine the whereabouts and situation of Mr. Almonte Herrera. In this regard, the Court observes that while the State referred to actions of punishing “those responsible for his disappearance,” at the same time it stated that Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera is “a fugitive of the law.” The State did not submit documentation to support this statement. 14. From the file on the instant matter, specifically the habeas corpus decision whereby Mr. Juan Almonte Herrera’s release was ordered, it is inferred that he was detained without a court order by the State authorities, and that he is still missing in spite of the order to release him. The Court insists that in view of the lack of information on his whereabouts, it may be presumed that Mr. Almonte Herrera is in grave risk of infringement of his right to life, right to personal liberty, and right to humane treatment.