17 a) During a meeting held on January 9, 2010 with military officials regarding the disappearance of the beneficiaries, one general present “took out some pieces of paper resembling a ‘case file’ and accused María de Jesús Alvarado [and to Rosa Olivia Alvarado Herrera) of having prior criminal convictions for burglary.” b) On February 4, 2010, “members of the Mexican military” appeared “in a threatening and intimidating way” at Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza’s place of residence, looking for María de Jesús Alvarado or Ascención Alvarado Favela. There, they interrogated one of Nitza Alvarado’s uncles, asking him for the location of Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes’s home, where neighbors later reported that “several soldiers [had] gone.” c) On February 5, 2010, a military truck arrived at the home of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and his mother was asked for “persons who had filed complaints or suits against the army.” d) A cousin of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza had received a phone call in which an alleged employee of the Presidency of the Municipality of Ascensión - where Nitza Paola worked - told him that “they had called him from the army to ask about his position, responsibilities, and he and his family’s place of residence.” 37. The Commission added that in April 2010, after the State indicated that it would respond to the requests from the petitioners to begin implementing protective measures (supra Considering 34), the representatives denounced “the persistent harassment against family members and representatives who ha[d] complained of these events and continue[d] in the search for justice”; in particular, the Commission indicated that they denounced the inadequate treatment on the part of State agents in charge of the investigations and “the continuity of visits from soldiers to the family members’ and representatives’ residences.” In this regard, the Commission declared its “particular worry” over the home visits that Patricia Reyes Rueda, Rocío Irene’s mother, had received from military personnel without providing her with any sort of justification for these procedures. The Commission noted similar concern for other situations occurring at the residences of the other two beneficiaries, given that “in at least some of th[ose] visits” express mention was made to the complaints filed against the military. The Commission emphasized that the representatives had referred to new threats against them in their June 24, 2010 brief (supra Having Seen 3). Specifically, the Commission referred to the following facts: a) On the night of May 4, 2010, three trucks from the Federal Police arrived at the residence of José Ángel Alvarado Herrera and his family “with some 15 people inside,” and they remained parked there for “some 15 minutes” while one of them directed its lights towards the house. b) On May 17, 2010, Juana Bustamente, who had received a call from Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza on February 3, 2010, “[...] received several calls in which she could only hear moaning.” c) On May 26, 2010, José Ángel Alvarado Favela together with Jaime Alvarado Herrera and Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo were detained by a military command between Ciudad Juárez and Praxedis for around 30 minutes. 38. Considering the request from the President of the Court (supra Having Seen 8), the Inter-American Commission added that “the situation of vulnerability in which the family members and representatives find themselves is aggravated by the lack of concrete results in the search for the beneficiaries,” and submitted the following information on the risk level and the degree of kinship with the beneficiaries of the persons for whom the expansion of provisional measures was sought: a) The family members of the beneficiary Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes for whom protective measures were sought are: her mother, Patricia Reyes Rueda; her brothers, Alan Alvarado Reyes and Adrián Alvarado Reyes; and her daughter, Michelle Urrutia Alvarado, who had been “witnesses to [the] disappearance of