19 Alvarado Reyes with the aim of “staying in touch” with the beneficiaries’ family members. Despite the foregoing, the State declared that “it ma[de] available its telephone numbers, which [the beneficiaries’] families already kn[ew] so that if it were ever to be required by any federal authority, these persons c[ould] verify if this official visit [was] properly based and motivated.” The State insisted that because of the open investigations based on the facts of the present case, “there [was] the possibility that some authorities [would] seek out the families of the beneficiaries so that they [would provide] information for the ongoing investigations.” Regarding the March 10, 2010 request from the proposed beneficiaries that a cell phone be given to Mrs. María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza, Mexico indicated that this equipment had already been sent but that Mrs. Alvarado Espinoza had not accepted it. The State also noted that it was in the process of making all internal arrangements to provide the proposed beneficiaries with six cellular telephone units and that on two occasions certain family members of the beneficiaries had been provided with means of transportation. Finally, the State stressed its position of “maintaining a good faith” agreement with the beneficiaries and their representatives on “convenient mechanisms to fulfill implementation of the protective measures in their favor.” Thus, when the representatives of the beneficiaries and the family members consider it appropriate, the correct agreed-upon measure will be implemented in order to make good on this issue. 40. Regarding the additional information presented by the Commission (supra Considering 38), the State noted that this information “[did] not precisely indicate the risk or imminent gravity” to which the family members of the beneficiaries would be exposed, nor “much less the connection to the protective measures” in the present matter, thus making this information “ambiguous and imprecise.” The State insisted that the necessary elements to determine the gravity and urgency of a situation “[were] not evident from the facts referenced by the [proposed] beneficiaries.” However, the State noted that regarding the events having allegedly occurred on May 4, 2010 (supra Considering 37(a) and 38(b)), the Federal Secretariat of Public Safety requested information from the operational sections of the Federal Police, and that when such information were obtained, it would be submitted to the Tribunal. 41. In its October 12, 2010 communication (supra Having Seen 4), the Commission added that the facts presented in its request as occurring after April 2010 were to be considered in the context of harassment and intimidation that began in January 2010, days after the beneficiaries’ disappearance, because ever since that date “officials from the military and other entities have shown up at the family members’ domiciles and have, without any sort of satisfactory explanation, inspected those locations and carried out ‘procedures.’” The Commission found the State’s remarks regarding the possibility that the beneficiaries’ families could be sought by the authorities for information as worrisome. In this regard, the Commission stressed that “the visits that both the family members and the representatives of the beneficiaries allege[d] to have received c[ould] not be considered regular in the context of the investigations.” On the contrary, the Commission found that “due to the characteristics [of the visits]; the violent and intimidating attitude; and the entities that appear[ed] at the residences, it [was] possible to infer their threatening nature.” 42. The Tribunal notes that in its observations on the State’s briefs both during the proceedings for precautionary measures before the Commission and during the present proceeding for provisional measures, the representatives have referred to and submitted information on what they consider to be separate acts of harassment and the State’s inability to provide protection for the family members and the representatives. In particular, the representatives stressed that they had met with the State on March 10, 2010 (supra Considering 11, 34) and that on that occasion they requested that the State provide them with certain measures of protection, but despite this the State did nothing in their favor. Rather, “on the contrary, the intimidating and harassing acts continue[d].” In addition to the acts already mentioned by the Commission in its