recommendation, “because the allegations against the Federal Police are based on presumptions […] that were not duly proved.” 11. For its part, in its observations, the Inter-American Commission indicated that, to date, the investigations into the whereabouts of the three beneficiaries José Angel, Rocío Irene y Nitza Paola, all with the surname Alvarado Reyes, have produced no concrete results, and the transfer from the military justice system to the ordinary jurisdiction occurred because the Military Attorney General’s Office determined that there was no evidence of the participation of soldiers and, therefore, it was no longer competent. In addition, regarding the measures of protection, the Commission expressed its concern owing to the “complete absence [of such measures],” because, “as reported, the situation of lack of protection of this group of beneficiaries has entailed a radical change in their lives and has obliged them to take [their own] measures.” 12. The Court notes that the State has underscored the realization of several investigations to find the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. In this regard, the representatives of the beneficiaries have indicated their disagreement with the fact that military personnel have been exempted of responsibility and that the line of investigation related to the supposed telephone call by one of the disappeared persons has been closed. Thus, in their final observations, they denounced the omission of detailed information in the reports on the inquiries carried out by the State. Furthermore, the CNDH has recommended that the beneficiaries be found immediately and produced alive. Also, regarding the implementation of measures of protection in favor of the next of kin who are beneficiaries, the State has argued that it has made numerous measures available to them, but does not have sufficient information to ensure the implementation of these measures. In this regard the representatives have indicated that they do not consider that these measures meet the needs for protection. 13. Taking into account the information provided by the parties, the Court considers that the delay in the search for those who presumably disappeared entails a constant increase in the danger that many rights will be violated, including the rights to life and to personal integrity. 14. Regarding the implementation of the measures in favor of the next of kin who are beneficiaries, there is evidence of a discrepancy between the beneficiaries’ need for protection and their disagreement with the State’s intention to involve the Federal Police in the execution of the provisional measures. In this regard, the Court considers that, based on the seriousness of the situation, the State must take into account the special needs of the beneficiaries in order to provide appropriate measures that guarantee their personal integrity and life and, consequently, reject those alternatives that have repeatedly been ineffective. 15. Therefore, the Court finds it necessary that, to ensure the due implementation of the measures, the State: (a) continue taking steps to determine the whereabouts of the beneficiaries as part of its obligation to investigate, and in the understanding that this search is the most appropriate way to protect the rights to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiaries who have presumably disappeared; (b) propose specific alternatives, in agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, in order to correct the deficiencies in the implementation of the measures; (c) forward the Court a consolidated list of the agreements reached by the parties at the different meetings held with the representatives and the beneficiaries, and the timetable for the implementation of these agreements, and (d) inform this Court in a precise and detailed manner of the specific measures of protection provided to each beneficiary in keeping with their special needs for protection. 6