2 b) on the following days the next of kin carried out several processes to obtain information regarding their situation and whereabouts, among them: i) they informed the town police, ii) they turned to the State Investigative Agency of Nuevo Casas Grandes, where they verified that the van in which Nitza and José were traveling when detained was located in the yard; iii) they filed an order before the Public Prosecutors’ Office of Buenaventura, iv) they turned to the barracks of the 35th Infantry Battalion, since they received information from official sources indicating that their next of kin were at said battalion; v) a complaint was filed at the offices of the Chihuahua Joint Operative in Ciudad Juárez; and vi) they filed a complaint before the State’s Human Rights Commission in Ciudad Juárez; c) on January 12, 2010, based on a communication1 received at the Commission that described in detail the previous background and pursuant to that stated in Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Commission sent a request for urgent information to the State so that it would, within 48 hours, inform of the whereabouts of Rocío, Nitza, and José; their physical state; and any other relevant information regarding their situation. On January 15, 2010, the State presented its response, in which it indicated, inter alia, that: i) the Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua started a preliminary inquiry on December 31, 2009, “under the crime of illegal detainment;” ii) the investigations “have not proven the existence of elements that define a forced disappearance;” iii) the Secretariat of National Defense informed that on January 9, 2010, it held a meeting, in which the military staff stated that there was no evidence that agents from the 35th Infantry Battalion had participated in the alleged arrest; and iv) the Attorney General of the Republic informed that after a search carried out by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office “no registry of a ministerial investigation or preliminary inquiry related to the alleged disappearance of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera was found;” d) on March 1, 2010, the representatives forwarded a communication2 to the Commission, through which they requested the adoption of precautionary measures in favor of Rocío, Nitza, and José, fourteen of their next of kin, and three representatives. Said communication included their observations to the State’s report, it updated the information previously presented and they referred to the context in which the facts occurred.3 The representatives pointed out the existence of evidence that supposedly proves the participation of 10 armed officers in uniform in the arrest of Rocío, Nitza, and José. Regarding the investigations they indicated, inter alia, that: i) in the dossier of the inquiry before the Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua no diligence trying to locate the victims has been recorded, nor has the protocol for the location of disappeared women in said State been activated; and 1 The communication through which the Commission was informed of these facts was filed on January 8, 2010, by the Women’s Human Rights Center (CEDEHM), whose headquarters are in Chihuahua. 2 The communication was filed by CEDEHM, The Paso del Norte Human Rights Center, with headquarters in Ciudad Juárez, and the Commission for the Solidarity and Defense of Human Rights, located in the city of Chihuahua. 3 The petitioners made reference to the “[b]ackground and context of the military occupation and violence in the State of Chihuahua” and to the “[s]pecific context in which the disappearance occurs [...].”