24 that the principal investigatory theory was “a casual theft derived from the perpetrator’s clear property interest” because up until that point there been no elements to establish a causal relationship between the theft and the work of the proposed beneficiaries or with the present provisional measures. Finally, in relation to the disappearance of the aforementioned blankets, the State indicated that the representatives had not filed the respective criminal complaint. 53. For their part, the representatives in their September 21, 2010 (supra Having Seen 3) brief indicated that “the acts of harassment against [us] ha[d] increased” in the face of the “total lack of State protection” and the failure to investigate the Alvarados’ disappearance. For this reason, the representatives requested that their level of risk and the acts of harassment they had faced be taken into account when considering the extension of provisional measures in their favor. 54. In particular, the representatives argued that on July 27, 2010 a group of approximately 10 uniformed and armed military officials arrived at the residence of Ms. Emilia Gonzáles Tercero, one of the representatives for whom the expansion of provisional measures was sought, “with the aim of intimidating her.” These men exclaiming in a mocking manner “how hidden your house is” and proceeded to photograph the residence’s exterior and give her a notice to appear at military camp 5C. The representatives highlighted the manner in which this was done, with particular emphasis on the brandishing of weapons, which is an inexplicable way to issue a subpoena to a human rights defender and constituted “an obvious act of harassment.” They added that the investigation for which she was summoned to testify had allegedly begun due to a journalistic piece from June 2009 in which Ms. González Tercero had filed a complaint for harassment against the military. The representatives found it highly irregular that Ms. Gonzáles Tercero would be subpoenaed in relation to these events a full year later, especially when according to official information from the SEDENA, that Ministry did not have any record of “any preliminary investigation begun in Chihuahua state dating from January 2009 [to September 2, 2010 that would have] been given impetus by the publication of any journalistic article.” The representatives later noted that because of that subpoena, Ms. González Tercero was obligated to testify before the Military Prosecutor. According to the representatives, the actions on the part of the military were linked to Emilia Gonzáles’s work in defense of human rights and to her representation in the Alvarado case; it is “illogical” that she would be subpoenaed merely to ratify a complaint which, although made public was never formally ratified, and that the subpoena would issue one full year after the fact and immediately on the heels of the submission of her petition to the Inter-American System. 55. The representatives insisted that the “acts of harassment and waste - via invitations to fruitless meetings in military installations - to which they are subject” constitute a form of pressure so that they cease their representation of the Alvarados, their complaints about military abuse, and their action before the Inter-American System. Additionally, the representatives indicated that in the context of discrimination against women, the lack of access to justice and the vulnerability of journalists and human rights defenders in Chihuahua “are undeniable,” which affects and increases the risk they face. 56. Regarding the represenatives’ arguments, the State noted that from this it was only clear that Emilia González Tercero had been subpoenaed on one occasion; the State then affirmed that at the moment of that subpoena no type of threat or intimidation had occurred. The State added that SEDENA had reported that the Military Prosecutor’s Office had effectively opened an investigation based on a journalistic note in which the representative argued that a violation of her human rights on the part of the military had occurred. The State pointed to certain procedures that it had advanced in the framework of this investigation, including taking the representative’s