10 lack of clarity and urgency on the part of the State in acting swiftly to protect disappeared persons.16 14. Regarding the State’s argument as to the representatives’ alleged “lack of willingness” to collaborate with State authorities in the investigation (supra Considering 8), the representatives indicated that their “principal interest [is] that the lives and right to humane treatment of the victims are protected” and that it is the State’s corresponding duty to investigate the case and not that of the representatives. They added that in the information presented “it is clear that the representatives have actively participated in each of the reunions to which they have been called, including [those convened by members of the] military,” among other efforts such as submitting requests for investigations, protection, and information in order “to compare [data] and seek the truth of the matters at issue.” 15. Concerning the representatives’ observations, the State stated that “having sent letters of collaboration to various authorities in the federal entities,” several mechanisms to carry out the search for allegedly disappeared persons nationwide were engaged, as the search for such individuals takes place “in all Mexican territories.” Regarding the representatives’ comment that FEVIMTRA lacks the capabilities to handle the beneficiaries’ case, the State pointed out that it “invite[d] the representatives of the beneficiaries and their family members to consult with the relevant authorities on scenarios in which they might work together in a coordinated and mutually cooperative fashion[, as] it [was] of no help disqualifying civilian authorities who [were] investigating the facts.” The State also noted concerning the meeting held on May 19, 2010 (supra Considering 11) that “at no point was the meeting ‘abandoned’” as it had already come to a close when the heads of the state agencies departed, but even still “officials of every agency remained in the capacity of representatives [of those who had left].”17 The State remained insistent that “the efforts of the State authorities [were] aimed at locating the beneficiaries by all means available, for which the participation of the representatives of the beneficiaries was sought in the consolidation of the investigations [and] where [...] necessary in the actions [for which] the Public Prosecutor [so] requested.” 16. For its part, the Inter-American Commission took note of the State’s expression of willingness to ascertain the whereabouts of the beneficiaries, but it observed from the State’s most recent brief that “no serious or immediate advances in the search [for them] were apparent.” It expressed its concern that in its briefs the State “[had] limit[ed] itself to responding generally to the [Commission’s] and the representatives’ questioning,” and that even the information Mexico submitted in response to this questioning, which “only [constituted] examples of the lack of an immediate response in view of the gravity of the situation,” “[was] generic and [did not] provide updated information concerning the investigations.” The Commission observed “without any claim of completeness” that there are “basic procedures which prima facie have not been given timely attention in view of the nature of the facts.” Particularly, concerning the need to determine the geographical position of the telephone call that Nitza Paola Alvarado made on February 3, 2010, the Commission stressed that “despite the State’s 16 In particular, the representatives noted in their November 22, 2010 brief (supra Having Seen 3) that the State has not indicated the date in which the actions it reported took place, the motive for them, or the goal of the same. The representatives also indicated with respect to certain actions that the information presented by the State is incomplete or contains omissions regarding the results obtained from them as well as the relation that they have with the geographical location of the beneficiaries. 17 In this regard, the State submitted a letter from the CONAVIM stating that when it was agreed to conclude discussion and to proceed to the signing of the memorandum, it was explained to those present that the top figures from the respective agencies were obligated to relocate to another room in the same building, but that “the officials from each agency [who were] directly responsible for the operation of the precautionary measures” remained in their representative capacity “with the aim of seeing the meeting to a close, which [...] had already in large part concluded” (Attachment 1 from the State’s brief of October 5, 2010).