3 ii) on January 6, 2010, an inquiry was opened before the Attorney General of the Republic for the crime of “abuse of authority”; however, on February 20, 2010, the mentioned Attorney General declined its competence based on jurisdiction and it forwarded the preliminary inquiry to the Military Public Prosecutors’ Office; e) On March 4, 2010, the Commission requested the State to adopt precautionary measures to protect the life and right to humane treatment of Rocío, Nitza, and José; and it required the State to report on their whereabouts, their state of health, and their safety, as well as the actions adopted in order to investigate the facts that led to the adoption of the measures. f) on March 18, 2010, Mexico presented its report, in which it stated that the three bodies in charge of the prosecution of the crimes, which “brought together information in their corresponding inquiries,” are: i) Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua: several diligences have been carried out to recollect testimonies; ii) Attorney General of the Republic: an agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office carried out interviews with staff from the 35th Infantry Battalion and the ministerial police of Chihuahua, who expressed the “nonexistence of information on the people reported as disappeared;” and the Specialized Prosecutors’ Office for Crimes of Violence against Women and Human Trafficking (hereinafter “FEVIMTRA”) opened a preliminary inquiry; and iii) Attorney General of Military Justice: does not have a background on the participation of military personnel; however, preliminary inquiries were started. Likewise, it informed that the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “NHRC”) submitted a complaint file. The NHRC requested reports from the involved authorities; and personnel from that commission made itself present at the Benito Juárez cooperative to interview the person who filed the complaint and the witnesses, and it inspected the inside of the installations of the 35th Infantry Battalion in an unsuccessful search for the whereabouts of Rocío, Nitza, and José. g) on April 20, 2010, the representatives forwarded their corresponding observations to the state’s report, highlighting the following: i) Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua: despite the evidence, testimonies, and information provided by the next of kin regarding the participation of army officials in the facts, diligences were not carried out to establish said participation, and the case was submitted to the Unit of Absent and Lost People, which does not investigate criminal facts but offers a type of social service to the next of kin. They also stated that it took until March 3, 2010, for them to request information from the communications company regarding the telephone line from which Nitza had made a phone call on February 3, 2010, and that the location of the telephone or the name of the owner of the line from which the call was made is still unknown; ii) Attorney General of the Republic: the State had provided contradicting information, since through an official letter of February 20, 2010, said Attorney General’s office declared itself unfit and forwarded the case to military justice. Regarding the inquiry before the FEVIMTRA, they stated that the content of the case dossier is that of the complaint filed by the next of kin, press releases, and urgent actions prepared by the same