16 and analyzed in relation to the events that gave rise to the present provisional measures” permit the inference that the family members and representatives found themselves in a situation of risk “related to their active participation in the investigatory processes to determine [the beneficiaries’] whereabouts.” The Commission also argued that “the nature of the facts denounced in the present case, taken together with indicia regarding the participation of members of the military in the disappearance of the present beneficiaries” placed the family members and representatives in a situation of risk necessitating the expansion of measures in their favor. 34. The Commission noted that acts of harassment have been occurring since the first complaints about the beneficiaries’ disappearance, but due to the State’s having reported that “the security measures for these persons were the subject of a dialogue with the family members and representatives,” the Commission continued to monitor the situation of the family members and the representatives in order to obtain more information on the results of the State’s aforementioned efforts “in a manner parallel to the request for provisional measures.” The Commission indicated that when it requested information from the State on the situation of the family members and representatives during the procedure for precautionary measures, Mexico remarked in a meeting held on March 10, 2010 that the State authorities present expressed to the family members and representatives that “[they] would give a timely response to each of their requests, carrying out the [necessary] formalities to begin implementing the protective measures.”34 However, the Commission indicated that the State “[had] not present[ed] additional information before the Inter-American Commission on this point” and that once the Commission was made aware of “the continuity of acts of harassment and threats,” it decided to request the present extension, bearing in mind that the Inter-American Court had already granted provisional measures in favor of the three disappeared persons. The Commission also noted that Mexico is not opposed to the granting of protective measures in favor of the family members and the representatives, but that from the available information concrete measures had not yet been implemented in their favor. For this reason, the Commission requested this extension of provisional measures “such that the willingness expressed by the State is reflected in specific actions in favor of these persons.” 35. In particular, the Inter-American Commission requested that the Court, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, obligate the state to: a) Adopt urgent measures [to] protect [the] life and right to humane treatment [of the proposed beneficiaries]; b) As a measures designed to ensure non-repetition, investigate the facts that g[ave] rise the present request to extend provisional measures[, and] c) Coordinate these provisional measures with the proposed beneficiaries. a. Regarding the beneficiaries’ family members 36. In particular regarding the family members, the Commission argued that between January and March 2010 and during the proceedings for precautionary measures before it, the following threatening or harassing acts were the subject of a complaint: 34 In that meeting, the family members and representatives requested specific protective measures. In relation to the family members, the following was requested: closed-circuit cameras in the beneficiaries’ three houses, police protection for highway movements, seven cellular telephones, and psychological treatment for the children of the forcibly disappeared beneficiaries as well as other family members. In relation to the representatives, the following was requested: to provide a cellular telephone to Emilia Gonzáles Tercero, to place closed-circuit cameras in the headquarters of the CEDEHM and Center for Human Rights of Paso del Norte, and to deliver five radio devices for each of the organizations in charge of representing the victims. (Attachment 1 from the representatives’ brief of September 21, 2010).